Tate v. Tate

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Tate v. Tate

68 So. 3d 513, 2011 La. LEXIS 1974, 2011 WL 4346304

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedAugust 31, 2011

DocketNo. 2010-C-1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 So. 3d 513 (Tate v. Tate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tate v. Tate, 68 So. 3d 513, 2011 La. LEXIS 1974, 2011 WL 4346304 (La. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

IN RE: Tate, Iris Hopkins;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 104,568; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 2034, 42 So.3d 439.

Writ granted; Case Remanded. The courts below failed to consider whether the outcome of the case, considering the law at the time of the transfers, is affected by the fact that defendants and/or the subsequent property owners are donees, having acquired their interest in the property, if at all, by gratuitous rather than onerous transfers. See Owen v. Owen, 336 So.2d 782 (La.1976); Mathews v. Mathews, 35,984 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/8/02), 817 So.2d 418. The lower courts also failed to consider the effect of the Lis Pendens filed in the public records before the transfer of the property [514]*514from Susan Lozier to Lisa Duvall and from Lisa Duvall to Justification, L.L.C. Accordingly, the decisions of the lower courts are vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial to consider all relevant issues under the correct legal principles.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN RE: Tate, Iris Hopkins;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 104,568; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 2034, 42 So.3d 439.

Writ granted; Case Remanded. The courts below failed to consider whether the outcome of the case, considering the law at the time of the transfers, is affected by the fact that defendants and/or the subsequent property owners are donees, having acquired their interest in the property, if at all, by gratuitous rather than onerous transfers. See Owen v. Owen, 336 So.2d 782 (La.1976); Mathews v. Mathews, 35,984 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/8/02), 817 So.2d 418. The lower courts also failed to consider the effect of the Lis Pendens filed in the public records before the transfer of the property [514]*514from Susan Lozier to Lisa Duvall and from Lisa Duvall to Justification, L.L.C. Accordingly, the decisions of the lower courts are vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial to consider all relevant issues under the correct legal principles.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 So. 3d 513, 2011 La. LEXIS 1974, 2011 WL 4346304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-tate-la-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack