Judgment rendered November 20, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 55,946-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
PAUL JOHNSON Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
SHANNON IVERSON Defendant-Appellee
Appealed from the Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bienville, Louisiana Trial Court No. 45,909
Honorable William R. Warren, Judge
ROSS LAW FIRM Counsel for Appellant By: James E. Ross, Jr.
HAMPTON LAW FIRM, LLC Counsel for Appellee By: Judith Layne Hampton-Kozik
Before PITMAN, ROBINSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ. ROBINSON, J.
In this action to revoke an irrevocable inter vivos donation of
immovable property from an uncle to his nephew, the uncle appeals the
judgment denying his claim. For the following reasons, we affirm the
judgment.
FACTS
Paul Johnson (“Johnson”), the maternal uncle of Shannon Iverson
(“Iverson”), was born in 1951 and is the youngest child of his parents, who
owned property located in Ringgold, Louisiana. In 1967, his parents
constructed a new home (“the house”) on the property. Iverson, who was
born that same year, lived in the house for the first four years of his life with
his mother, his maternal grandparents, and Johnson.
Johnson began paying the mortgage on the house after his father died
in 1982. It took him ten years to pay the remaining balance of $15,000. He
lived in the house off and on until his mother died in 1995. He moved to
Baton Rouge in 1996 to work as a heavy equipment operator.
According to the parties, the property had been passed down through
generations. There was a partition in kind of the property in 2009. Johnson
received two tracts, including the tract with the house.
Johnson was diagnosed with cancer in 2015. Iverson came from his
home in El Dorado, Arkansas, to check Johnson into the hospital and to stay
with him. When Johnson was discharged from the hospital after a week,
Iverson took his uncle back to his home in Denham Springs, Louisiana,
before returning to El Dorado. Johnson moved into Iverson’s home in El Dorado in 2016. He was
provided with his own room and meals. He did not pay rent or utilities,
although he testified that he gave $200 to Iverson’s wife each time that he
received his check.
On June 10, 2016, Johnson executed a donation deed in which he
donated the two tracts in Ringgold to Iverson. The deed stated that the
donation was irrevocable and was for and in consideration of the love and
affection which Johnson had for Iverson. The donation was executed before
Farmerville attorney Judith Hampton.
Shortly thereafter, Johnson fell and injured himself after allegedly
smoking synthetic marijuana with a neighbor. When Iverson learned of this,
he told his uncle that he could not use drugs while living there. Believing
that he was no longer welcome and feeling uncomfortable at his nephew’s
home, Johnson moved out.
On October 19, 2021, Johnson filed a petition to revoke the donation.
He alleged that although the donation stated it was irrevocable, there was no
meeting of the minds because at the time it was signed, he had no intention
to make the donation irrevocable, he was not advised that the donation’s
language made the donation irrevocable, and he did not understand that the
deed stated that the donation was irrevocable.
He further alleged that the donation failed for lack of consideration.
He made the donation to show appreciation for Iverson helping with his care
when he was ill. Further, Iverson breached their agreement by failing to
keep the house in good repair, keep cows on the land, make periodic
2 monetary payments to Johnson, and to take care of Johnson’s funeral
expenses.
Johnson additionally alleged that Iverson had made verbal threats
against him which caused him to fear that Iverson or a member of Iverson’s
family would harm him. He contended this cruel treatment amounted to
ingratitude sufficient to revoke the donation.
Finally, Johnson alleged that Iverson helped Johnson while he was ill
solely in an attempt to manipulate Johnson into giving the property to
Iverson. Iverson knew or should have known that Johnson was under the
influence of strong medicines when he signed the donation which he had not
prepared. Johnson did not sign the donation with a full understanding that it
was irrevocable.
In addition to the revocation of the donation, Johnson sought $50,000
in damages to repair the home because Iverson had breached his promise to
do so.
Trial
A bench trial was held in this matter on July 7, 2023.
Paul Johnson testified that Iverson was one of his favorite nephews.
He cosigned the loan for Iverson’s first car. He recalled that after he
returned home from the hospital, he saw Iverson in the audience at his
Denham Springs church. Later that day, Iverson cried as he told Johnson
that he had grandchildren. Johnson later learned that Iverson was
experiencing marital problems. Iverson began calling Johnson on a regular
basis and eventually convinced him to move to El Dorado, where he would
live with Iverson, his wife, and two adult sons.
3 Johnson testified that Iverson came up with the idea of making a new
will. He told his uncle that his prior will was not sufficient because it
needed an accurate description of the property.
When asked whose idea it was to make the donation, Johnson
responded that Iverson said he wanted the property to go to him, despite
Johnson having a daughter. Johnson recalled an instance when Iverson tore
up a photo of Johnson’s daughter before he could see it, which he took as an
example of Iverson not wanting anyone else to get close to him. Johnson
desired to give the property to Iverson out of love and affection because he
was a favorite nephew.
Johnson insisted that he did not call Hampton’s office to prepare the
donation. He also did not pay Hampton’s fee. While he knew that Iverson’s
son was driving him to Farmerville to execute the donation, he did not see
the donation before he arrived at Hampton’s office. He recalled that once
there, Hampton briefly explained some things. He claimed that the
document was not read to him before he signed it. He did not read it himself
before signing it. Johnson also claimed that one of the witnesses signed for
the other witness who was absent.
Johnson understood that he was giving ownership of the land and
minerals to Iverson. However, he did not know what irrevocable meant
when he signed the donation, and he would not have signed it had he known
what it meant. He did not intend for the donation to be irrevocable, and
nobody explained to him that it was at the signing.
Johnson believed that Iverson and his family began treating him
differently once Iverson received what he wanted. Although they never said
4 anything to make him feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in their house, he
felt that way because Iverson and his son Seneca frowned or gave him angry
looks when Johnson was around. In Johnson’s view, he felt like he had been
“kicked to the curb.” He moved out of his own free will because of the way
he felt treated there.
After the donation, Iverson gave away two horses belonging to
Johnson that had been pastured on the property. The two horses, along with
Iverson’s horse, had escaped when a relative on adjoining property had
removed a fence.
Johnson testified that Iverson sent him $100 on three occasions prior
to the donation. Iverson sent $1,000 to Johnson after he moved out.
Johnson denied ever using any illegal drugs; however, he admitted to
smoking marijuana during his life, although never at Iverson’s home.
Johnson testified that he showed love to Iverson and expected the
same in return, but did not receive it. He also expected Iverson to care for
the property like he had done. He explained that he and Iverson had
discussed that Iverson would do some things to take care of the property.
However, he never gave Iverson a list of things that needed to be done.
Johnson testified that he spent time on the property after the partition
and through 2015. Although the house is now in a state of disrepair, that
was not the case prior to the donation. While the roof needed to be replaced,
he considered the house to have been in a very livable, albeit not
“comfortable,” condition before the donation, and he asserted that two
people lived there prior to 2015. The utilities were on and the property taxes
were paid. Iverson had received $1,000 in timber proceeds before the
5 donation, and to Johnson’s dismay, did not use the money to repair the
house.
Johnny Davis, a carpenter from Arkansas, testified that Johnson asked
him to prepare an estimate of the cost to repair the house. He went to the
property in October of 2021, when he examined the house and took
photographs, which were admitted into evidence. He estimated that it would
cost $70,000 in labor and materials to make the house livable again.
Michael Bryant, a friend of Johnson’s for more than 40 years, testified
that Johnson is a truthful man who always tries to help loved ones. He
learned about the donation from Iverson, who showed him the deed. While
he never witnessed any verbal argument or physical fight between Johnson
and Iverson, he believed that Johnson felt discontent at the way he had been
treated.
Shannon Iverson testified that he and Johnson spent a lot of time
together when he was growing up. Johnson is his favorite uncle, and
Johnson said he was his favorite nephew. Iverson denied that Johnson
cosigned a vehicle loan for him.
Iverson recalled that he told Johnson to write a will leaving the
property to his cousins Tony and Roderick because they had grown closer to
their uncle.
Iverson testified that about a month after Johnson’s surgery, he moved
his uncle to El Dorado because he was complaining that he was being
mistreated in Denham Springs. Johnson was provided with his own room
and three meals a day.
6 Iverson testified that they only discussed the Ringgold property when
Johnson became angry because Roderick had messed up the property. He
claimed that he did not ask Johnson for the property and told him to give it
to Roderick or Tony, but Johnson said that he wanted him to have it. He
accepted the property because it had sentimental value, and his grandparents
had worked hard to pay for the land.
Iverson testified that Johnson made the call to set up the appointment
for the donation. Johnson told him that he had gotten a lawyer. Iverson
believed this occurred one or two months after Johnson had moved to El
Dorado. He denied giving Hampton’s name or phone number to his uncle.
Iverson denied that he and Johnson discussed repairing the house or
that the donation came with conditions. He made no representations to
Johnson that he would make any repairs. Johnson told him to keep the
money from the timber sale, and he never intended to use that money to do
anything to the house. He felt it was not his responsibility since Roderick
had messed up the house. He has made no repairs to the house, and if he
ever does it will be on his schedule.
Regarding what happened to the horses, Iverson testified that some
horses that he and his uncle owned together escaped when an aunt had her
fence removed. He eventually gave two horses to a neighbor so he would
not have to worry about the horses getting loose on nearby roads and
endangering motorists.
Iverson acknowledged that he never thanked Johnson for the donation.
He thought Johnson lived in his home for six to eight months. He did not
ask Johnson to leave his home in El Dorado, but merely told him not to use
7 drugs in his house. He thought Johnson left a week later. Iverson claimed
that Johnson was using drugs at his house, and that he started using
marijuana about two weeks after moving there. Johnson used it mostly in
the garage. Iverson cited the incident with the synthetic marijuana as an
example of his drug use. He also testified that he had seen marijuana in
Johnson’s possession as well as him using marijuana at Iverson’s house. He
added that he has seen his uncle use marijuana for the last 40 years.
Iverson described his uncle as being full of fun when he was not using
drugs. They got along for the most part, and he never argued with or yelled
at Johnson while he was living with him in El Dorado.
Tammy Williams has been a legal assistant for Hampton since March
of 2016. She has 33 years of experience as a legal assistant. She witnessed
the donation. She recalled that the other witness, Stacy Hunt, was present
for the execution of the donation.
Williams testified that Hampton asked Johnson if he had any
questions. She remembered that Iverson asked him if that was what he
wanted to do and if he was sure because he had other relatives who could
receive the property. Johnson replied that it was what he wanted to do.
Williams testified that Hampton explained to Johnson what he was
signing, that there was no type of condition, and that he was making the
donation solely out of the love that he had for Iverson. Hampton also
explained that it was an irrevocable donation. Williams recalled that
Hampton asked Johnson if he understood what he was signing and told him
that it could not be undone. Williams added that she had never seen a
donation at Hampton’s firm where any conditions were placed on the donee.
8 She remembered Johnson verbally indicated that he understood what was
going on and that he wanted to donate the property with the understanding
that he could not have it returned to him. She could not remember if it was
Iverson who hired them to facilitate the donation.
Stacy Hart has worked as a land abstractor for Hampton for 14 years.
She was the second witness to the donation. She insisted that she was
present if she signed it. Although she had no recollection of the donation
execution, she explained that it is standard procedure for Hampton to go
over the document, explain it, and make sure the parties understand what
they are doing.
Hart testified that the deed indicated that Tammy Williams typed it
and printed it. She added that although she did not know how Williams
obtained Johnson’s information, Williams could have gotten this information
from one of the parties, from the parish courthouse where the property is
located, or by checking online for a deed with the property description.
Hart believed that Iverson had been at Hampton’s firm for business
prior to the donation. She had no knowledge that Johnson contacted the firm
about preparing the donation deed. She did not know who paid the firm.
Seneca Iverson is Iverson’s older son. He was in his early 30s in 2016
when he lived at home with his parents, brother, and great-uncle. Johnson
spoke with him about the donation. Johnson said he felt Iverson would be
responsible, he (Johnson) was behind on his taxes, and he wanted to give it
to Iverson. Johnson never indicated to Seneca that there were any conditions
for Iverson to fulfill to receive the donation.
9 Seneca did not feel that being behind on taxes was Johnson’s motive
for making the donation. He drove Johnson to Farmerville for the donation.
His understanding was Johnson set up the appointment, but he was not
certain about that. He did not know his father had been a prior client of
Hampton’s firm.
Seneca was present when the donation was executed. He remembered
that Hampton went through the paperwork thoroughly with Johnson, and she
asked him multiple times if he understood what she was saying and if this
was something that he wanted to do. Johnson answered in the affirmative
multiple times and said he wanted to make sure the property went to “Sugar
Pie,” which was his nickname for Iverson.
Seneca thought that he had a great relationship with Johnson as they
spent a lot of time together. He never saw an exchange of harsh words
between his father and Johnson. Seneca testified that after Johnson fell in
the front yard and hurt his head, he learned from a neighbor that Johnson had
been smoking synthetic marijuana which he had obtained from the neighbor.
Johnson had blood above an eyebrow and on his arm. His mother asked
Johnson if he wanted her to bring him to the hospital, but he declined and
said he was fine. When his father returned home from work, he told
Johnson that he would have to leave if he could not stop using drugs.
Seneca had seen Johnson smoke marijuana a few times at a barn located five
to ten miles from their house. Those were the only times that he saw
Johnson smoke marijuana.
10 Seneca thought Johnson left a couple of weeks after the incident
concerning the synthetic marijuana. Iverson was on the road working as a
truck driver when Johnson left.
Shaquille Iverson, Iverson’s younger son, was 24 when he lived with
his family in 2016. He thought that Johnson was treated well, and he never
witnessed any cruel treatment or a verbal or physical altercation between
Johnson and his father. He never saw Johnson doing drugs at their house.
He was not sure why Johnson moved out, but it happened shortly after his
father spoke with Johnson about doing some unacceptable things at the
house. Asked if he had ever seen Iverson maliciously or intentionally cause
Johnson any harm, he answered that all he saw was his father trying to help
all his family members.
At the close of evidence, Hampton put on the record that she was the
attorney and notary on the donation deed. Iverson waived any conflict
created by her representing him. Iverson also acknowledged that she had
suggested another attorney to represent Iverson in this lawsuit.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Iverson, concluding that
the donation was valid and was not revoked. The court noted that Johnson
claimed the donation should be revoked on account of ingratitude for: (1)
failing to maintain the property or make repairs; (2) failing to thank Johnson
for the donation; (3) evicting Johnson; and (4) accusing Johnson of doing
drugs. The court concluded that Johnson was not evicted from Iverson’s
home and that the remaining claims made by Johnson did not rise to the
level of ingratitude that could give cause to revoke the donation.
11 DISCUSSION
Johnson, who has new counsel on appeal, argues that the trial court
committed manifest error in failing to consider the issue of Hampton’s
conflict of interest. Johnson further argues that the trial court committed
manifest error in failing to revoke the donation based on ingratitude.
Conflict of interest
Johnson testified that he did not know Hampton, he did not see the
donation before arriving at her office, he did not understand what he was
signing, and he would not have signed it had he known the donation was
irrevocable. Iverson testified that Johnson set up the appointment with
Hampton. Iverson had been a client of Hampton in other matters before the
donation.
Johnson argues that Hampton had a conflict of interest under Rules
1.7 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that was not addressed by
the trial court and is a ground for setting aside the donation. He contends
that he would have declined the services offered by Hampton had he known
that Iverson had been a prior client and that she was working for Iverson at
the time of the donation when she was representing Johnson’s interest. He
maintains that setting aside the donation is the only reasonable action to take
since Hampton never obtained a waiver from him of the conflict of interest.
We first note that this issue was not addressed by the trial court
because it was not raised at trial by Johnson’s trial attorney and is urged for
the first time on appeal by new counsel. As a general rule, appellate courts
will not consider issues raised for the first time in this court, which are not
pleaded in the court below and which the district court has not addressed.
12 Geiger v. State ex rel. Dept. of Health and Hosp., 01-2206 (La. 4/12/02),
815 So. 2d 80.
Furthermore, whether or not Hampton had a conflict of interest, it did
not affect the validity of the donation. Signatures to obligations are not mere
ornaments. Tweedel v. Brasseaux, 433 So. 2d 133 (La. 1983). The law of
Louisiana is that one who signs an instrument without reading it has no
complaint. Id. It is well settled that a party who signs a written instrument
is presumed to know its contents and cannot avoid its obligations by
contending that he did not read it, that he did not understand it, or that the
other party failed to explain it to him. Aguillard v. Auction Management
Corp., 04-2804 (La. 6/29/05), 908 So. 2d 1.
Johnson was aware of what he was doing when he made the
irrevocable donation. The donation, which Johnson willingly signed, stated
it was irrevocable. Witnesses testified that the nature of the donation was
explained to Johnson. This argument is without merit.
Ingratitude
Johnson contends that Iverson’s ingratitude was shown by his plot to
defraud Johnson of his property and then falsely accuse him of using drugs
to get him out of his El Dorado home.
A donation inter vivos may be revoked because of ingratitude of the
donee. La. C.C. art. 1556. There are two grounds for revocation on the
basis of ingratitude. The first is if the donee has attempted to take the life of
the donor. The second is if the donee has been guilty towards the donor of
cruel treatment, crimes, or grievous injuries. La. C.C. art. 1557.
13 Grievous injuries sufficient to revoke a donation have been defined as
any act naturally offensive to the donor. Porter v. Porter, 36,007 (La. App.
2 Cir. 6/12/02), 821 So. 2d 663. Cruel treatment or grievous injury
sufficient to revoke a gratuitous donation may include adultery by a spouse,
seizing property belonging to a parent, filing suit against a parent alleging
criminal activity, and slandering the memory of the donor. Id.
The trial court was not manifestly erroneous in concluding that the
evidence did not establish the level of ingratitude sufficient to revoke the
donation. Iverson opened his home to Johnson, who was offered room and
board and was not expected to pay rent, for food, or for utilities.
Apparently, the only condition to live there was that Johnson did not use
drugs. Johnson decided to move out because he felt uncomfortable by how
Iverson and Seneca looked at him, and because he felt that Iverson did not
reciprocate his love. While it is unfortunate that their once close relationship
is now strained, hurt feelings in this instance do not rise to the level of cruel
treatment or grievous injuries sufficient to revoke this donation.
CONCLUSION
At Johnson’s costs, the judgment is AFFIRMED.