DOROTHY DESHOTEL DUPRE, ET AL. VERSUS SHERYL DUPRE FOGLEMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
b NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL THIRD CIRCUIT 47 15 DOROTHY DESHOTEL DUPRE ET AL VERSUS Judgment rendered SHERYL DUPRE FOGLEMAN and mailed to all parties or counsel on June 3 2015 Applications for avowed rehearing may be filed with the delays P La Code Civ P art 2166 or La Code Crim by art 922 APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH TWENTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT D 5661 C PARISH OF ST LANDRY NO 13 HONORABLE ALONZO HARRIS DISTRICT JUDGE ELIZABETH A PICKETT JUDGE Court D7 Q composed Judges of John D Saunders Elizabeth A Pickett and Phyllis M Keaty AFFIRMED Bruce Achille Gaudin Attorney at Law 100 W Bellevue St Opelousas LA 3818 337 948 70570 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS APPELLEES Dorothy Deshotel Dupre Estate of John B Dupre Jeff Bradley Dupre Benjamin Carol Dupre Donald Lynn Mayeux Attorney at Law O P Box 1460 Eunice LA 70535 9610 337 457 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT Sheryl Dupre Fogleman PICKETT Judge Sheryl Dupre Fogleman appeals of donation from her parents two acts the judgment of the trial court that finding nullities to her are STATEMENT OF THE CASE In 1989 His medical Mrs s Fogleman father care was very expensive John B On Dupre had a stroke debilitating in September 12 1989 an effort to prevent their creditors including the Lafayette General Hospital from seizing the land an on act which their home of donation rights Landry Parish Dupre allegedly also executed to the children Carol Mrs Dupre donation On Mr John a Dupre her Dupre act of Fogleman public records counter letter Fogleman and his wife tract of land separate and an Dorothy adjacent executed acre 06 13 donation they transferred the Mrs Fogleman On the same filed the acts of date Mr and indicating they wished be divided equally Mrs the property between their four Barney Dupre Jeff Bradley Dupre and Benjamin September 15 1989 Fogleman Evangeline a to Mrs Fogleman donated to Mrs land in In Fogleman of those tracts to Mrs donation in the St subject Mr transferring athirty acre tract of land to Mrs mineral situated was in a separate act of donation Mrs 6th acre seven separate 1 interest in atwenty Dupre tract of Parish died in 2002 Mrs Fogleman purported to execute various transfers of title of the property to her husband her mother and her brother Jeff Mrs Fogleman paid ill Jeff who disagreements was the living over her and the Estate of Mr for property on care taxes on the property When Mrs Dupre became acre 06 the 13 tract of land and Mrs On December Fogleman 5 2013 Mrs Dupre her three Dupre represented by Jeff Declaratory Judgment seeking to nullify the as administrator filed donations to Mrs a had sons Petition Fogleman They that alleged evidenced by the donations 1 by the counter authentic act letter 2 Mrs Fogleman in violation of the counter null and void lacked filed capacity an Following the for their sustenance donations omnium bonorum or bench trial the court ruled that Mrs a manner Code Civ required by La The trial court denied Mrs Fogleman Mr and Mrs making 5 Dupre the donations Mr and Mrs Mrs Fogleman Dupre Fogleman never accepted 1544 thus the donations art nullities and Mrs Dupre and the Estate of Mr Dupre property Mrs provide acted Fogleman of prescription the donations in the were were Mrs as the donations accepted understand the legal effect of the donations to exception never simulations were letter 4 by donating the property resources to they as they by taking possession of the property 3 or lacked sufficient invalid because were were the true s Fogleman exception of owners of prescription appeals now ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Mrs 1 Fogleman alleges two assignments The trial court committed manifest of error in error finding that the two parties were null and void because A Sheryl Fogleman never accepted the donation and B the counter agreements reflected the clear intent of the parties that all the children would inherit their parents property in equal shares and therefore it donations made by the was an the 2 absolute simulation and the donations had no effects between parties The court erred in Fogleman of her Parish it as nullifying the donation from Mrs Dupre to Sheryl 1 6th interest in the twenty acres in Evangeline seven never judgment yet held that the donation gave it back to Mrs Dupre was invalid in its in the reasons for judgment DISCUSSION An appellate finds manifest court may not set error Rosell v s aside the trial court 2d ESCO 549 So 2 840 findings 1989 La of fact unless it The only issue presented Mrs here is whether Mrs Fogleman accepted the donations from Mr and We must determine whether the trial court erred in Dupre actions did not constitute s Fogleman When the donations at issue an acceptance were as finding that Mrs required by the Civil Code Code Civ executed in 1989 La art 1540 stated binding on the donor and shall day of its being accepted in precise A donation inter vivos shall be effect produce only from the terms by a The acceptance may be made during the lifetime of the donor posterior and authentic act but in that case the donation shall have effect with notified of the act Civil Code Article 1541 the regard to the donor only from establishing that acceptance for acceptance provided day of being by possession Yet if the donation has been executed that is if the donee has by the donor in corporeal possession of the effects given donation though not accepted in precise terms has full effect been put Civil Code Article 1554 required that the acceptance of a the donation of immovable property be recorded When the donation comprehends immovable or rights thereto the act of donation as well as the act of acceptance whether the acceptance be made by the same or a separate act must be registered within the time of conveyances prescribed for the registry of mortgages in the register of the parish in which the immovable is situated The Civil Code articles La Acts No cited by donations regarding 204 effective January 1 2009 the trial court in its reasons for were revised in 2008 by The current relevant code article ruling is La art Code Civ 1544 which states A donation inter vivos is without effect until it is the donee The acceptance shall be made donor 3 2008 during accepted by the lifetime of the The acceptance of a donation may be made in the act of donation or subsequently in writing When the donee is put into the donor the donation by possession by The revisions did not Fogleman including Evangeline Parish whereby Mrs property as the donation of Mrs whereby she required by as legal requirement court also specifically evidencing her for paid accepting a found that Mrs parents intent to movable case before from Mr and Mrs us to Dupre in s Dupre separate property do not include They Mrs Fogleman language did not produce donee accepted the donations of the immovable the Civil Code donation at the clerk office and s the in the record Fogleman accepts the donations any authentic act a the donee also constitutes acceptance of transferring property placed were of the law in any respect relevant to the change The three acts of donation Mrs corporeal possession Her taxes testimony on that she filed the acts of the property is insufficient to meet donation of immovable property Fogelman sent her brothers the counter letter apportion the property equally children She did attempt to introduce documents The trial evidencing property executed the day of the trial but the trial court among their four her acceptance of the properly ruled them inadmissible The trial court did not never took effect and in owners ruling of the property issued by declaring 1248 finding Mrs that the donations to Mrs Dupre and Mr s Dupre the trial court do not mention the property in controls writ in We find of no consequence that the is axiomatic that where the judgment err denied Moss v 783 98 judgment y Cou and the 640 97 La 5 98 29 4 reasons App La for 3 Cir 720 So 340 2d heirs as thorough Fogleman the rightful for reasons Evangeline Parish judgment differ 97 10 12 It the 704 So 2d There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court s property in Evangeline Parish had accepted the no legal ruling that the donation of effect because Mrs Fogleman never donation CONCLUSION The to judgment of the trial court is affirmed Costs of this Sheryl Dupre Fogleman AFFIRMED 5 appeal are assessed
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.
