Ventre v. Pacific Indemnity Co.
1982 La. App. LEXIS 7519, 419 So. 2d 969 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Louisiana, an agreement to sell a property interest on an installment basis constitutes a completed sale, not a conditional sale, and title passes immediately upon agreement of the thing and price, thereby preventing unilateral rescission by one party due to non-payment or failure of a perceived 'suspensive condition.'
Facts:
- Emile K. Ventre purchased a Fairchild airplane in his name on April 19, 1967.
- Ventre subsequently entered into an agreement to sell a one-half interest in the airplane to Robert Moody, with Moody agreeing to pay on an installment basis and having permission to fly the plane at will.
- Ventre obtained an insurance binder for the airplane which initially named both Ventre and Moody as authorized pilots.
- On or about May 24, 1967, Moody gave Ventre a check for $165 as the first installment payment, but the check was returned 'NSF' (non-sufficient funds).
- Ventre, dissatisfied, had Moody’s name removed from the insurance binder and informed the Opelousas Flying Service and Moody that Moody was no longer authorized to fly the plane and that their 'deal was off'.
- On June 7, 1967, Robert Moody flew the airplane, and it subsequently crashed, resulting in a total loss.
Procedural Posture:
- Emile K. Ventre filed a lawsuit against Pacific Indemnity Company in the trial court to recover damages for the total loss of his airplane under an insurance policy.
- The trial court granted a judgment in favor of Pacific Indemnity Company.
- Emile K. Ventre, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Louisiana agreement for the installment sale of a property interest, where one party fails to make payments or meet a perceived insurance qualification, allow for unilateral rescission by the other party, such that the subsequent use of the property by the first party constitutes theft under an insurance policy?
Opinions:
Majority - LaBORDE, Judge
No, a Louisiana agreement for the installment sale of a property interest, where one party fails to make payments or meet a perceived insurance qualification, does not allow for unilateral rescission by the other party, and thus, the use of the property by the first party does not constitute theft under an insurance policy. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that under Louisiana Civil Law, the agreement between Ventre and Moody for the sale of a one-half interest in the airplane was a completed sale, not a conditional sale. Louisiana courts consistently refuse to recognize common law 'conditional sales' and instead consider an agreement a completed sale when all essential elements and conditions (the thing and the price) are present, with title passing at that time. Even though Moody's check was dishonored, its tender and Ventre's acceptance indicated that the price and terms were agreed upon, completing the sale. As a result, Moody owned one-half of the airplane and possessed an absolute right to use it. Ventre's attempt to impose further conditions, such as full payment or insurance coverage, and his unilateral rescission of the sale were invalid because a completed sale cannot be dissolved without a suit for dissolution or a demand for specific performance, as per LSA-C.C. arts. 2046 and 2047. The court viewed the insurance qualification as a resolutory condition, which does not prevent the sale from being complete but provides grounds for a future action to dissolve the contract.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Louisiana's unique civil law approach to sales, particularly its rejection of common law conditional sales concepts. It establishes that in Louisiana, an agreement containing the essential elements of a sale (agreement on the thing and the price), even if payments are made on an installment basis, transfers title immediately. This prevents a vendor from unilaterally rescinding a sale based on non-compliance with terms, mandating judicial action instead. The ruling has critical implications for insurance claims, as it defines when a co-owner's use of property, even against the wishes of another co-owner, does not constitute 'theft' if legal title has passed.
