Martin v. Brister

Louisiana Court of Appeal
850 So. 2d 1106 (2003)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Louisiana Civil Code art. 1839, a verbal contract for the sale of immovable property is valid and enforceable when there has been actual delivery of the property to the buyer and the seller acknowledges the transfer under oath.

Facts:

On January 3, 1997, John Brister, Jr., sold a two-acre tract of land to Tommy and Brenda Martin.
Shortly thereafter, the Martins and Brister verbally discussed the sale of an adjacent 40-foot strip of land for the Martins to use as a driveway.
On February 7, 1997, the Martins paid Brister $76,466.67, which they claimed consisted of $70,000 for the original property balance, $6,000 for the 40-foot strip, and $466.67 in interest.
Brister accepted the full payment but later disputed that the parties had agreed on a price for the 40-foot strip.
The Martins took possession of the 40-foot strip and constructed a driveway on it.
In May 1997, Brister signed a statement declaring he had no objection to the Martins receiving a government permit for the construction of the driveway.
In February 1998, Brister refused to sign a corrected deed prepared by the Martins' attorney that formally included the 40-foot strip of land in the property description.

Procedural Posture:

Tommy and Brenda Martin filed a petition for damages against John Brister, Jr., in a Louisiana trial court, seeking to enforce the sale of the 40-foot strip of land.
Brister filed an answer and a reconventional demand (counterclaim) seeking damages.
The trial court found that a valid verbal contract of sale existed and rendered judgment adjudicating title of the 40-foot strip to the Martins.
The trial court also awarded Brister $850 on a separate claim for a motor boat and dismissed all other claims.
Brister, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. The Martins are the appellees.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a verbal contract for the sale of a strip of land enforceable when the buyer has taken possession by building a driveway on it and the seller admits under oath to having sold the land, despite disputing the payment?

Opinions:

Majority - Williams, J.

Yes, a verbal contract for the sale of a strip of land is enforceable under these circumstances. Louisiana law provides an exception to the requirement that sales of immovable property be in writing where two conditions are met: (1) actual delivery of the property, and (2) recognition of the transfer by the seller under oath. Here, the Martins' construction of a driveway on the 40-foot strip constituted actual delivery. Furthermore, Brister acknowledged the sale during his trial testimony when he stated, 'I sold Tommy forty feet... He just never did pay me for it.' This statement, made under oath, satisfied the second requirement of the statute, even though he disputed payment. The court also found sufficient evidence that the parties had agreed on the price, based on Brister's acceptance of a payment exactly $6,000 (plus interest) over the amount owed on the original note, which did not contain a prepayment penalty.

Analysis:

This case provides a clear application of the exception to Louisiana's general rule requiring written contracts for the transfer of immovable property. It clarifies that 'actual delivery' can be established by the buyer's overt acts of possession, such as construction. More significantly, it establishes that a seller's admission of the sale 'under oath' is sufficient to enforce the contract, even if the admission is part of a denial of payment or a dispute over terms. This precedent reinforces that a party cannot admit the core fact of a sale in sworn testimony and then hide behind the lack of a written agreement to invalidate it.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Martin v. Brister (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"