Cardinale v. Stanga

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: Parro
• Citation: Cardinale v. Stanga, 835 So.2d 576 (La. App. 2002)
• Decision Date: 27 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2001 CA 1443.,2001 CA 1443.
• Parties: Agnes B. CARDINALE v. Thomas A. STANGA

835 So.2d 576

Agnes B. CARDINALE v. Thomas A. STANGA

No. 2001 CA 1443.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

September 27, 2002.

Craig P. Hart, Covington, for Plaintiff-Appellant Agnes B. Cardinale.

Douglas T. Curet, Hammond, for Defendant-Appellee Thomas A. Stanga.

Gary M. Peltier, Hammond, for Defendant-Appellee Ponchatoula Homestead Savings, F.A.

Before: CARTER, C.J., PARRO and CLAIBORNE¹, JJ.

PARRO, J.

In this negligence action against a lender of money for failing to transfer an ownership interest in immovable property from one co-borrower to another in conjunction with a loan secured by such immovable property, the trial court granted the lender's peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action. The non-owner borrower appeals. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

In April 1994, Agnes B. Cardinale (Cardinale) and Thomas A. Stanga (Stanga) began to reside together in a home owned by Stanga. Because of their deteriorating relationship, Cardinale moved from Stanga's home in September 1998. On March 1, 2000, Cardinale filed suit against Stanga for breach of contract. In her petition, Cardinale alleged that she and Stanga borrowed $160,000 from Ponchatoula Homestead Savings, F.A. (Homestead) on May 1, 1998, for the purpose of consolidating Stanga's debts, paying off the liens on his residence, and making home improvements. This debt was evidenced by a note, which was secured by a mortgage on Stanga's residence. According to Cardinale, Stanga agreed to "amend the title to the residence to include [her] name to reflect her position as co-borrower on the mortgage and to reflect her one-half equity interest in the residence" as reimbursement to her of the loans made to him by her and in consideration of her being a co-obligor on the $160,000 loan. Allegedly, Stanga breached this agreement by failing to transfer an equity interest in the residence to her; in particular, he failed to execute the appropriate documentation to place her name on the title to the residence.

By a supplemental and amending petition filed on September 22, 2000, Cardinale added Homestead as a defendant. Cardinale alleged that the "Uniform Residential Loan Application" completed in conjunction with the May 1, 1998 loan to Cardinale and Stanga evidenced that the parties intended that the title to the residence be held in the name of both borrowers since both would be obligated on the $160,000 loan. According to Cardinale, Homestead was negligent in failing "to transfer any interest" in the residence to her based on the information contained in the loan application.

Homestead responded with a peremptory exception raising the objections of prescription, no cause of action, and no right of action. Being neither an attorney nor a notary public, Homestead indicated that it did not have the legal right to transfer any interest in the property. Accordingly, Homestead maintained that Cardinale had not stated a cause of action against it.

Following a hearing on these objections, the trial court sustained Homestead's exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissed Cardinale's claims against Homestead. In so ruling, the trial court noted that in the absence of "I hereby convey, sell, transfer" language within the loan application, there was no written agreement to convey immovable property. Thus, the trial court found that Cardinale would not be entitled to recover from Homestead based on the facts alleged. Cardinale appeals, contending the trial court erred in sustaining Homestead's exception.²

Applicable Law

The purpose of an exception raising the objection of no cause of action is to determine the sufficiency in law of the petition. The exception is triable on the face of the petition. For the purposes of determining the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true. City of New Orleans v. Board of Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 93-0690 (La.7/5/94), 640 So.2d 237, 241; see LSA-C.C.P. arts. 927, 931. Furthermore, the facts shown in any annexed documents must also be accepted as true. United Companies Mortgage & Investment of Lake Charles, Inc. v. Brown, 303 So.2d 820, 821 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1974); see LSA-C.C.P. art. 853.

In ruling on a peremptory exception pleading the objection of no cause of action, the court must determine whether the law affords any relief to the claimant if the factual allegations in the petition and annexed documents are proven at trial. Southside Civic Association v. Warrington, 93-0890 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/8/94), 635 So.2d 721, 723, writ denied, 94-1219 (La.7/1/94), 639 So.2d 1168. The burden of demonstrating that no cause of action has been stated is upon the exceptor. Home Distribution, Inc. v. Dollar Amusement, Inc., 98-1692 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/24/99), 754 So.2d 1057, 1060.

If the facts alleged in the petition and shown in the annexed documents set forth a cause of action as to any part of the demand, the exception must be overruled. Succession of Bertaut, 572 So.2d 142, 144 (La.App. 1st Cir.1990), writ denied, 573 So.2d 1111 (La.1991); United Companies Mortgage & Investment of Lake Charles, Inc. v. Brown, 303 So.2d at 821. Any doubts are resolved in favor of the legal sufficiency of the petition. Lambert v. Riverboat Gaming Enforcement Division, 96-1856 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/29/97), 706 So.2d 172, 175, writ denied, 98-0297 (La.3/20/98), 715 So.2d 1221. In reviewing a trial court's ruling sustaining an exception raising the objection of no cause of action, the court of appeal should subject the case to de novo review because the exception raises a question of law and the lower court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition. City of New Orleans v. Board of Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 640 So.2d at 253.

Analysis

Cardinale contends the trial court erred in sustaining Homestead's peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action based on its failure to consider the loan application, that was submitted to Homestead, as a written indication of the parties' intent to transfer partial ownership of the property.

Relative to the voluntary transfer of ownership of an immovable, LSA-C.C. art. 517 ...