Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1560 provides that revocation on account of ingratitude can take place if the donee has been guilty towards the donor of cruel treatment, crimes or grievous injuries.
The father, Earl G. Perry, Sr., gave to his son, Earl G. Perry, Jr., a substantial amount of stock in the corporation, in which, the father was a part owner. When the son became an attorney, the father signed a written guarantee prepared by the son of a contract by which the corporation agreed to buy back the son's stock to enable him to finance his law practice. Pursuant to the contract, the son received an initial lump sum payment of $ 150,000 in 1978 and then monthly installment payments of $ 5,000 each on the balance due. In the summer of 1985, the corporation ceased making payments due to its financial difficulties and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. The son then sued his father as guarantor on the contract. The district court rendered judgment against the father. Unable to collect on the judgment, the son obtained a writ of fieri facias and directed the sheriff to seize various items of personal property located at his parents' home, including jewelry, appliances and furniture. During the seizure, at which the son was not present, his mother fainted and his father was summoned to obtain medical attention for her. Subsequently, the father and his wife filed a petition seeking a preliminary injunction against the seizure alleging, among other claims, that they were revoking for ingratitude various donations they had made to their son and that the revocation of these donations would be compensation for their judgment debt. After a hearing, the district court enjoined the execution of the judgment pending a hearing to ascertain the value of the donations to be offset against the judgment amount. The district court judge's decision to grant the injunction was based on conclusions that: (1) That the seizure of the father's property was sufficient cause under La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1560 for revocation of donations made to the son; and (2) that the objects of said donations were "susceptible of prompt and easy liquidation." The son challenged the grant of injunction.
Was the grant of injunction proper under the circumstances?
On appeal, the court agreed with the trial court that the son's actions caused "grievous injuries" within the meaning of art. 1560. Because some of the gifts had values that were readily ascertainable, the injunction against execution of the son's judgment on the debt pending a hearing to ascertain those values was not in error.