Plaintiff borrows money from a bank to finance home construction on a 5 Vi acre tract he inherited. A short time later his sister conveys her interest in the tract to him, and on the same day he signs a document that conveys his mineral rights in the tract for $3,000 to JKD Investments, which is owned and operated by an officer and employee of the bank financing the home construction. About four years later, plaintiff learns the import of the deed and that the mineral rights to his tract are owned by the banker. He then seeks rescission of the conveyance plus damages, alleging that he was defrauded. He alleges that, contrary to the three affidavits put forth by defendants, he did not sign the mineral deed in the presence of any witnesses or a notary public. The trial court grants summary judgment for defendants. Held: affirmed. The claim-that-the plaintiff never read the mineral deed negates the possibility of his being defrauded by defendants. A transfer of immovable property must be made by authentic act or by act under private signature. Any party against whom an act under private signature is asserted must acknowledge his signature or deny that it is his. During his deposition, plaintiff acknowledges that the signature on the mineral deed is his. This acknowledgment renders the factual dispute over whether two witnesses and a notary were present immaterial, since in one scenario the transfer is made by authentic act and in the other scenario the transfer is made by act under private signature. Under both scenarios the transfer is valid.
展开▼
