Gerald John Rousseau VS Rebecca Dufrene Badeaux and Patricia Badeaux Rousseau
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 0832 GERALD JOHN ROUSSEAU VERSUS REBECCA DUFRENE BADEAUX AND PATRICIA BADEAUX ROUSSEAU Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 Appealed from the Twentythird Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Assumption Louisiana Docket Number 28992 Honorable Alvin Turner Jr Judge Presiding Leslie J Clement Jr Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Thibodaux LA Gerald John Rousseau Ricky L Babin Counsel for Defendants Appellees Gonzales LA Rebecca Dufrene Badeaux and Patricia Badeaux Rousseau BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ WHIPPLE J This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing with prejudice s plaintiff petition to rescind the sale and recover ownership of certain immovable property For the following reasons we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY By act of cash sale dated March 14 2002 Gerald John Rousseau plaintiff herein and his thenwife Patricia Badeaux Rousseau conveyed two pieces of immovable property located in Assumption Parish to Rebecca Dufrene Badeaux Patricia mother The purchase price stated in the act of s sale was 126 for both properties 00 000 Approximately three years later on May 19 2005 Mr Rousseau filed a petition to rescind the sale and to recover ownership of the immovable property naming Mrs Rousseau and Mrs Badeaux as defendants In the petition Mr Rousseau contended that he and Mrs Rousseau with whom he was in the midst of divorce proceedings at the time this petition was filed had executed the act of sale to effectuate the transfer of the record ownership to Mrs Badeaux in order to protect against potential loss of the property because a third party was contemplating the filing of a lawsuit against Mr Rousseau Mr Rousseau further contended that he understood that the transfer was not a true sale but was simply a paper transaction to protect his assets and that the purchase price was never paid He further contended that when he later requested that Mrs Badeaux transfer the property back to him she refused to do so Thus Mr Mr Rousseau further contended in his petition that he was functionally illiterate and taking heavy doses of medication and that as a result he did not fully consider the ramifications of transferring the record ownership of the property to Mrs Badeaux However the trial court after considering the conflicting evidence presented at trial obviously rejected this contention 2 Rousseau contended that because the sale was in fact a simulation he was entitled to judgment rescinding and dissolving the simulated sale In a supplemental petition Mr Rousseau further alleged that Mrs Rousseau and Mrs Badeaux had conspired with each other to defraud him of the ownership of his property and thus he contended that he was entitled to damages and attorney fees in addition to the return of the purchase s price 2 Following a bench trial the trial court found that Mr Rousseau had failed to prove that the act of sale transferring the immovable property at issue was a simulation Thus the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing Mr Rousseau claims From this judgment Mr s Rousseau appeals contending that the trial court erred in 1 requiring Mr Rousseau to bear the burden of proving that the act of sale was a simulation instead of shifting the burden to the defendants and requiring the defendants to prove that the sale was not a simulation 2 failing to consider whether the defendants provided evidence to rebut the presumption that the act of sale was a simulation and 3 failing to consider whether Mr Rousseau should be allowed to recover damages and attorney fees s DISCUSSION On appeal Mr Rousseau notes that there are two legal presumptions one codal and one jurisprudential which may apply in situations where a party seeks to prove a simulation The codal presumption found in LSA C art 2480 provides that when the thing sold remains in the possession of the seller the sale is presumed to be a simulation Additionally he notes 2W are unable to determine precisely what Mr Rousseau is requesting when he seeks return of the purchase price in that as one of the sellers the purchase price would have been paid to him not by him Additionally we note that Mr Rousseau had previously averred in the original petition that the purchase price for the immovable property had never been paid 3 that in Smith v Smith 239 La 688 700 119 So 2d 827 831 1960 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that where the evidence establishes facts and circumstances that create highly reasonable doubts as to the honesty of the sale a prima facie case of simulation is established and the burden is shifted to the defendant to prove that a valid sale existed Notably while Mr Rousseau admits that he exercised little if any corporeal possession of the property after the sale he nonetheless asserts that the codal presumption of simulation should apply Alternatively he asserts that the circumstantial evidence established a highly reasonable doubt as to the reality of this sale and thus that the jurisprudential presumption of simulation should have been applied Therefore he contends that the trial court erred in failing to shift the burden to defendants to rebut the presumption of simulation Louisiana Civil Code article 2025 defines a simulation as a contract which the parties mutually agree does not express the true intent of the parties An absolute simulation is a contract intended to have no effects between the parties LSAC art 2026 C An example of an absolute simulation is an act whereby the parties make an apparent sale when they actually intend that the vendor will remain owner LSAC art 2026 C Revision Comments1984 Comment a In an absolute simulation sometimes called a pure simulation or a non transfer the parties only pretend to transfer the property from one to the other but in fact both the transferor and the transferee intend that the transferor retain ownership of the property Scoggins v Frederick 981814 98 1815 98 1816 La App 1 Cir 9 744 So 2d 676 685 writ St 99 24 denied 993557 La 3 756 So 2d 1141 00 17 When this type of simulation is successfully attacked the true intent of the parties is revealed E that is that no transfer has in fact taken place Peacock v Peacock 28 324 La App 2d Cir 5 674 So 2d 1030 1033 96 8 Ordinarily whether or not a transaction is simulated is a matter to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each case Milano v Milano 243 So 2d 876 879 La App 1 Cir 1971 A simulation may be established through a counterletter a separate writing that expresses the true intent of the parties LSAC art 2025 However a simulation also may C be proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence since by its inherent nature a simulation often only admits of circumstantial proof Progressive State Bank 2 Wilson v Trust Company 446 So 2d 867 869 La App Cir 1984 Nonetheless with regard to Mr Rousseau challenge to the sale of s immovable property herein we note that the law imposes a strict rule of evidence in contests between the parties to an alleged simulationonly written proof will suffice to establish the true agreement where one party disputes it Scoggins 744 So 2d at 686 Thus the apparent transferor may not succeed in attacking a sale as an absolute simulation in the absence of a counterletter LSAC art 2026 Revision Comments1984 Comment C b see Sherman v Nehlia 154 La 25 30 97 So 270 272 1923 Scoggins 744 So 2d at 685s The law requires written proof of the true will 3W note that in Sonnier v Conner 43 La App 2 Cir 12 998 So 811 nd 08 3 2d 344 356 358 writ denied 2009 0309 La 4 6 So 3d 773 the Second Circuit 09 3 concluded that the purported transferor of immovable property who retained corporeal possession after the alleged sale was entitled to the LSAC art 2480 presumption that C the sale was a simulation and did not have to produce a counterletter to prove a simulation However in the instant case Mr Rousseau acknowledged at trial that he had not exercised corporeal possession over either tract of land since the sale at issue thus negating the application of any presumption of a simulation pursuant to LSAC art C 2480 Moreover even if we were to conclude that pursuant to LSA C art 1848 circumstantial and testimonial evidence were proper herein to prove a simulation we would find no manifest error in the trial court determination that Mr Rousseau failed to s carry his burden of proving a simulation Contrary to Mr Rousseau assertion the s evidence presented at trial while conflicting was insufficient to establish a highly 5 of the parties because the courts have been unwilling to allow themselves to be open to a potential contest of veracities every time property is sold Scoggins 744 So 2d at 686 Accordingly the jurisprudence recognizes that in contests between the purported vendor and the purported vendee no questions of fact are presented but only questions of law Scoggins 744 So 2d at 686 Ridgedell v Kuyrkendall 98 1224 La App I Cir 5 740 So 2d 173 179 99 18 Indeed in contests between the purported vendor and the purported vendee of immovable property counterletters are admissible evidence but the testimony of witnesses is not LSAC art 2020 Revision Comments C 1984 Comment b Scoggins 744 So 2d at 686 In the instant case conflicting testimony as to the intent of the parties and the circumstances surrounding the sale was presented at trial However Mr Rousseau was unable to offer into evidence any writing purporting to be a counterletter to the sale in question Accordingly we are bound to conclude that no question of fact is presented herein and Mr Rousseau failed as a matter of law to establish that the act of sale in question was a simulation For these reasons we find no merit to Mr Rousseau s assignments of error CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons the February 28 2010 judgment of the trial court dismissing Mr Rousseau claims is affirmed Costs of s this appeal are assessed against plaintiff Gerald John Rousseau AFFIRMED reasonable doubt as to the reality of the sale Thus no shifting of the burden of proof would have been required or warranted G STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0832 GERALD JOHN ROUSSEAU VERSUS C REBECCA DUFRENE BADEAUX AND PATRICIA BADEAUX ROUSSEAU McCLENDON J concurs and assigns reasons Given plaintiff failure to establish corporeal possession and his inability to s produce any writing expressing the true intent of the parties I agree with the result reached by the majority Therefore I respectfully concur
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
