CIVIL DOCKET # 268,231 CHANDLER GROCERIES, INC. NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT v PARISH OF RAPIDES AYOUB ALI STATE OF LOUISIANA WRITTEN REASONS This matter came for trial on July 15, 2021. Present in court were: Donald Chandler, individually and on behalf of Chandler Groceries, Inc. with his attorney, iam M. Ford; Ayoub Ali with his attorney Ramon J. Fonseca, Jr. Testimonial and documentary evidence were presented with post-trial memorandums submitted with the last received by the court on ‘August 5, 2021. Following a review of the evidence presented, the Court now issues these written reasons. Procedural and Factual History Donald Chandler individually and on behalf of Chandler Groceries, inc. filed an action on June 9, 2020 against Ayoub Ali alleging fraud relating to the cash sale filed March 12, 2020." Chandler sought to have the sale rescinded, vacated, set aside, annulled and declared null and void. The petition further asked that Chandler be recognized as the sole owner of the property and be placed in possession of the property. Ayoub Ali was personally served with the suit on June 17, 2020. No answer was filed and Chandler filed for a preliminary default on July 7, 2020. On July 21, 2020 during the court's motion hour Chandler presented evidence and received a default judgment. A motion for new trial was filed by Ali on August 6, 2020 with a hearing finally being held on January 25, 2021. The Court granted the defendant’s motion for new trial with the default judgment being vacated and declared null. Ali filed his answer with affirmative defenses on March 5, 2021. Two other lawsuits were filed invol ing the “Chandler's Grocery” location. On November 23, 2020, General Star indemnity Co filed an action against North West Enterprises in docket number 269,428 and then on March 23, 2021 Chandler filed an action against LA Farm Bureau et al in-docket number 270,313. The lawsuits involve issues concerniny urance * Plaintiff Exhibit 2 and Defendant's Exhibit 1 — Cash Sale Deed filed 3/12/20, Conveyance Book 2137 Page S97 1coverage. A motion to consolidate the files was requested, however this court denied the consolidation as well as denied a motion to continue trial and the trial was held, with these written reasons now being issued, The Court notes that the property suffered significant damage as a result of a fire on June 7, 2020. Witni imony Testimony from Donald Chandler and Ayoub Ali revealed that, for weeks prior to the filing of a Cash Sale Deed in the Rapides Parish Clerk of Court's office, discussions were held concerning the sale of property located on Highway 28 West known as “Chandler's Gracery”. Chandler had a sign posted on the outside of the store advertising the business was for sale. ‘Ayoub Ali and his father reached out to Chandler to discuss the price for the business. Chandler reported he would accept $325,000 for the property. Ayoub Ali and his father later met with Chandler with the sum of $200,000 in cash and a personal check in the amount of $125,000. Chandler reports that he would not accept the personal check payment instead asked that they return with the entire amount in cash or a cashier's check to fully complete the sale. At this point, the versions of what happened next are in conflict. Chandler reports he never received the money and that there was a plan to meet at the office of Michael Walters to finalize the sale while Ali reports that he did give the cash to Chandler and that they then traveled together to the notary’s office to have the document notarized. Issues of credibility are threaded throughout the trial. As is often said the truth lies somewhere in between the stories told within the courtroom. What became clear however, the requirements of Civil Code Article 1833 concerning authentic act were not followed. The following is a brief synopsis of the testimony of the witnesses who appeared at trial: ‘Testimony of Donald Chandler Donald Chandler is a retired farmer and small business owner of 65 years who operated Chandler's Grocery for many years and then began leasing out the property. Chandler's Grocery was last leased to Heath Parker (subpoenaed as a witness however did not testify) Chandler testified that he was no longer interested in leasing so advertised the property forsale. The contents or inventory of the store belonged to Heath Parker who sold the store’s inventory to Ali for $25,000 cash. Chandler remembers the meeting with Ali and his father. His recollection is that they did have $200,000 in cash along with a personal check. Chandler explained he would not accept a personal check but wanted it all in cash or cashier’s check. Following that meeting, Chandler contacted his attorney, Michael Walters, to prepare documents for the sale of the property. Chandler testified that Ali and his father talked several times but the sale kept being pushed off. The day the “cash sale” was signed by Chandler was described by Chandler as happening in this way: Chandler met Ali at Chandler's Grocery located on Highway 28 West. They had a discussion about securing a liquor license and that Ali asked that Chandler sign a document so that Ali could get his liquor license. Following the signing, they rode together in Ali's vehicle into Alexandria to a couple of locations searching for a notary. They finally stopped near the traffic circle at Al's Used Car lot, seeking the services of a notary. Chandler stated that it was the plan following the visit to a notary to then go by Michael Walters’ office to the final papers for the sale of the grocery store. Ali drove to Michael Walters’ office on Jackson Street and while waiting outside in the car, Ali received a text. Chandler reports that Ali's father was not able to join them, so the papers were not going to be signed. Chandler entered into Michael Walters’ office speaking to the receptionist to report that they would not be signing the documents. Chandler was adamant in his testimony that he never signed a cash sale nor did he sign anythi involving the resolution for the sale. Chandler was equally adamant that he did not receive $325,000 for the sale. Chandler, however, did state that it appeared to be his signature. Chandler remembers going to the notary and being asked if that was his signature on the document. He responded that it was his signature, however not reading the document he was under the belief the document concerned the liquor license and not a cash sale. That belief, he testified was because they were set to go to Michael Walters’ office as well on the same day. Chandler admitted he did not review the document and did not ask for copy while with the notary.Testimony from the witnesses on the cash sale ‘Audrey McQueen is a former employee of Chandler's Grocery. She was hired by Heath Parker and continued to work for Ali after he took over the property. She does not remember specifically signing the cash sale deed however she does have a memory of being asked to sign something for the ATC, Alcohol Tobacco Commission. When she signed, she was working and from her memory she was the first to sign the document, She did not see Chandler or Ali sign any documents, McQueen shortly thereafter left or quit her employment because she believed ‘Ali was not paying her correctly resulting in her calling the local sheriff's office to complain. Christy Delaney is a former employee of Chandler's Grocery. Like Audrey McQueen she was originally hired by Heath Parker and continued to work following Ali's take over. Delaney recognized her signature; however, she doesn’t remember if anyone else’s signature was on the paperwork before hers or not. She signed while she was at work. She vividly remembers being told that the document was for a liquor license. She did not go to the notary’s office. She did not see Chandler or Ali sign. She did not see any exchange of funds between Ali and Chandler. Like Audrey, Christy left/quit her employment and did so a week before Audrey due to problems in salary. Testimony of the notary Diane Deville Diane Deville was a reluctant witness however readily admitted the limitations of her notarial transactional business with Ali and Chandler. Ms. Deville has been a notary since 1991 and has little memory of the events of that day. She does not remember if Ali or Chandler had witnesses that day. She did remember that the Chandler and Ali had already signed the document. She did not read the document or discuss the contents of the dacuments with Ali or Chandler. She did ask for their driver's licenses and verified that it was their signatures on the document, She did state that the two individuals did not sign in her presence. The finer details of their interactions about their encounter were no longer in her memory. She remembers that her office held other people and it was busier than usual in their place of business. She charged and was paid $10.00 for her notarial services. She had not met \F to this event and had met Chandler briefly about 10 years ago. She recognized that she did fill in the blanks for thestate and parish but reports that she did not notice the designation of seller or purchaser. Deville saw her role as only verifying that the signatures on the document were the two ividuals who appeared before her and not verification that they understood what was signed. Following this event and after this suit was filed, Deville remembers Ali stopping by the office to ask her to sign an affidavit or to make a statement about the case. She did not sign nor did she draft her own affidavit. She did however participate in a deposition. Arnie Deville, who is married to Diane Deville and the owner of Al’s Used Cars, testified giving facts similar to that of Ms. Deville. His version of Ali stopping by was one described as Ali being persistent or insistent for Diane Deville to make a statement. Testimony from Michael Walters Walters has been an attorney for 28.5 years with his primary practice being real estate. He has known and worked for Chandler for most of his life. Chandler has used him regularly to perform legal work and Walters is familiar with his company, farm and the store in question. Chandler reached out to Walters when he decided to sell the store so that he would be prepared when the property sold. In late February, Chandler contacted Walters stating he had a buyer and the property was selling for $325,000 with $200,000 being in cash and then the remainder, $125,000 would be in the form of a mortgage.’ At the time of that call, no date was selected for a closing. Then in the 1" or 2" week of March, Walters got a call reporting that Chandler and ere coming to sign the documents. Testimony of Ayoub Al Ali testified that he is a 26-year-old self-employed individual who has resided in the U.S. for about 5 years. His family has a history of being small store owners throughout Lou which has included locations in Ville Platte, Covington, Franklinton and they began looking to buy another store. Chandler's Grocery was advertised for sale, so he and his brother first met with Chandler and then later Ali got his father and they met with Chandler. At that meeting, Ali and his father had $200,000 in cash and wanted to write a personal check for the remaining $125,000. The deal was not completed on that date because Chandler would not accept the ? plaintiff's Exhibits - 4 ~invoice for services; 9 ~ draft Cash Sale; 10 draft Mortgage spersonal check. The conversations continued and Ali purchased the inventory from Heath Parker for $25,000 cash. Ali testified that he spoke with his own attorney and got the cash sale document from Mason Title. Ali reported that was instructed to have the document signed in front of a notary. Ali testified that he gave Chandler the full sum of the purchase price in cash while at the store and on the same day as the others signed as witnesses on the cash sale deed. The money was in a brown bag which Chandler then put in his vehicle. Following the giving of the cash, Ali and Chandler both rode together to go find a notary. Ali's version is that it was Chandler who didn’t want to see or use the services of Michael Walters because of Covid concerns. In discussing the person or entity that is actually operating the business, Ali reported that he rented the bullding/business to Northwest Enterprises after another indi lual couldn't successfully operate the business. sought out insurance through Robert Soileau and stated that Soileau was the one who set the coverage amount of the policy. Ali stated that he didn’t realize that he needed to give a copy of the document signed by all to Chandler and further di not have a receipt or any proof of the exchange of cash. Testimony of Robert Soileau Robert Soileau is an insurance salesman who is employed by Halk Insurance Holdings. He was referred to Ali through a call from his boss. His only knowledge was that it was client ‘who purchased a new business. Soileau testified that he worked together with Alito get a property quote. The insurance application was completed over the phone with the information reported to Soileau that the property was a cash purchase and no mortgage attached. Soileau vividly remembers a discussion concerning the value of the insurance coverage. That discussion involved a request of the insured to use figures like that of a home recently purchased in Lafayette valued at $275 per square foot along with a discussion of future plans for building a better gas station. The application was completed via phone and there was never anything exchanged in writing. Soileau testified that he does not check ownership but relies upon the individual seeking the coverage. Soileau remembers Ali asked for $2 million specifically. When questioned if this discussion raised any red flags, Soileau stated he did not find it unusual andrecognizes that market value and replacement value are two different things especially with a 4,000 sq ft building. Soileau did call the field evaluator so that they could do a site visit but his notes do not reflect that he ever got a call back on that referral. When asked about the stated ‘owner of Northwest Enterprises, Soileau stated he assumed Ali was the owner since he was the person making the request for coverage. Testimony of Wahid Yousef The Court also heard testimony from Ali's father, Wahid Yousef via Zoom however that testimony was limited in value due the challenges of Zoom. The Court does note that Ali's father’s version of where cash was gathered was different than that of Ali. For the purposes of this opinion the testimony of Ali who was not present for the signing of the document nor was he present for any exchange of funds, therefore he adds little value. Testimony of Nidhaul Ali's brother, Nidhaul i, testified that he was with his brother the day cash was delivered to Chandler, however he did not enter the room when the money was exchanged nor was, he present for the signing of the document. Law and Jurisprudence A review by the Court of the law and jurisprudence involving the sale of immovable property requires a closer look at several of the Louisiana Civil Code Articles. The Louisiana Civil Code's writing requirement for the sale or transfer of immovable property states that the parties must execute “an authentic act” or “act under private signature.” La. C.C. arts. 1839 and 2440. An authentic act is a “writing executed before a notary public or other officer authorized to perform that function, in the presence of two witnesses, and signed by each party who executed it, by each witness, and by each notary public before whom it was executed.” La. C.C. art. 1833. In contrast, an act under private signature only requires the signatures of the parties and does not require the act be signed by the party in whose favor it is made. Acceptance may be established by acts clearly indicating it. La. C.C. art. 1837; See Mitchell v. Clark, 448 So.2d 681, 686 (La. 1984) and Cecil Blount Farms, L.L.C. v. MAPOO-NET, 47,246 (La-App. 2 Cir. 7/25/12), 104 $0.3d 1, 5, writ denied, 2012-2263 (La. 1/11/13), 107 So.3d 614? Louisiana Civil Code Article 2439 describes the elements of a sale which is “a contract whereby a person transfers ownership of a thing to another for a price in money. The thing, the price, and the consent of the parties are requirements for the perfection of a sale.” Along with > succession of Davisson, 50,830 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/22/16), 211 So. 3d 597, 609, writ denied, 2017-0307 (La. 4/7/17), 218 So. 341112439 is the expectation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 2440 which addresses specifically the sale of immovables: “A sale or promise of sale of an immovable must be made by authentic act or by act under private signature, except as provided in Article 1839.” Louisiana Civil Code Article 1833 A. and B. defines an authentic act with the applicable & sections for thi iscussion: ‘A. An authentic act is a writing executed before a notary public or other officer authorized to perform that function, in the presence of the two witnesses, and signed by each party who executed it, by each witness, and by each notary public before whom it was executed. The typed or hand-printed name of each person shall be placed in a legible form immediately beneath the signature of each person signing the act. B. To be an authentic act, the writing need not be executed at one time or place, or before the same notary public or in the presence of the same witnesses, provided that each party who executes it does so before a notary public or other officer authorized to perform that function, and in the presence of two witnesses and each party, each witness, and each notary public signs it. The failure to include the typed or hand-ring name of each person signing the act shall not affect the validity or authenticity of the act. Authentic acts are accepted as proof of an agreement, as described in the Louisiana Civil Law Treatise* ‘An authentic act constitutes full proof of the agreement it contains, as against the parties, their heirs, and their successors by universal or particular title. That probative Weight is the reason why the act is called authentic, as it proves without more that the parties appeared at a certain place and did or said what the instrument recites that they did or said. The notary's signature, which implies his presence at the act, attests to the fact that the parties appeared before him and made certain declarations. As explained before, in the exercise of his public functions a notary is a dispenser of the public faith, a sort of eminent witness, and the genuineness of his signature can be readily verified with the office of the secretary of state, where a notary public must register an original of his signature as a last requirement to obtain his commission. Thus, an act executed before a notary public and two witnesses is authentic in the sense that it proves itself, so that if a dispute arises between the parties the production in court of the instrument dispenses with the need for any other proof that the act has been actually executed by the parties. Such an act in Louisiana, as under the French Code, is presumed to be valid, and this presumption is established in the interest of public order, to maintain peace and to prevent contestation concerning proof or evidence of juridical acts. Asale of immovable property may also be performed by an “act under private signature” as defined by Civil Code Article 1836: An act under private signature is regarded prima facie as the true and genuine act of a party executing it when his signature has been acknowledged, and the act shall be admitted in evidence without further proof. An act under private signature may be acknowledged by a party to that act by recognizing the signature as his own before a court, or before a notary public, or other officer authorized to perform that function, In the presence of two witnesses. An act under private signature may be acknowledged also in any other manner authorized by law. * Full proof between parties and successors, 5 La. Civ. L Treatise, Law of Obligations § 12.22 (2d ed.) 8Nevertheless, an act under private signature, though acknowledged, cannot substitute for an authentic act when the law prescribes such an act. As is the case before this court, the genuineness of an authentic act may be challenged with the burden of proof being placed upon the party who makes that allegation that the act is one of forgery or fraud. The burden of proof is more than a mere preponderance of the lence but an expectation of convincing proof must be presented to invalidate. The party against whom an act that purports to be authentic is produced may prove that the act is a forgery, hence, not authentic, because that party's signature, or the notary's, has been forged. Quite clearly, the burden of proof is on the party who makes such an allegation. Because, as already explained, an authentic act proves itself, strong, clear, and positively convincing proof is required to set aside an authentic act for forgery of a signature thereto, rather than the ordinary preponderance of the evidence that prevails and suffices for a plaintiff to recover in an ordinary civil action. A closer review of recent cases involving authentic acts indicates a strict following of La. il Code Article 1833: The First Circuit in 2017 in Villenuve v. Cash’ matter found that even though all who signed the document were within the same office building they were not in the room when the witnesses’ signatures were made, thus the requirement of La.C.C. Art. 1833 were not met. The act of donation was not executed in the presence of two witnesses. In another First Circuit case in 2014 Eschete v. Eschete ® the notary was on a telephone call when a signature was place on the document with one of the witnesses observing. The Court applied a strict interpretation of La. . Art, 1833 and found that the purpose of the authentic act requires is to ensure the validity of a signature on a document and that the person whose name appears thereon is the person who actually signed the document. The notary and witnesses attest to seeing the party sign the document. Zamjahn v. Zamjahn, 02-871 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/28/03), 839 So.2d. 309, 315, writ denied, 03-0574 (La. 4/25/03), 842 S0.2d 410. The notary and both witnesses are Mars Beach, LuC v. MeQuirter, 234 $0.36 908 (2017) * Civil Law Treatise citing: See comment (b) to LSA-C.C. art, 1835; Saunders v. Lomonaco, 396 So.24 316 (La. APP. 4th Cir. 1981); Eschete v. Kraemer, 129 S0.2d 475 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1961). New Era Development Corp. v. Robert, 105 So. 3d 889 (La. Ct. App. Sth Ci. 2012) (Although an authentic act constitutes full proof ofthe agreement, forged signature of seller precludes act from being either authentic or under private signature.) See Pierre v. Donaldsonville Motor Co,, 22 $0.24 281 (La. App. Orl. 1945); Abraham Lincoln Home Founding Co. v. Gibson, 162 So. 237 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1935). See also Bank of Commerce & Trust v. Nopsak, Inc., $67 S0.24 763 (La. App. 34 Cr. 1990). LeBoeuf v. Duplantis, 162 So. 592 (La. App. Ast ir. 1935); DVincentiv. Mcintyre, 611 $0.24 140 (La. App. 1st Cir, 1992); Meltzer v. Meltzer, 662 $0.24 58 (La. App. 4th Ci. 1995); writ denied, 666 So.2¢ 293 (La. 1996), ‘An authentic actis presumed to be genuine and strong or convincing evidence is the standard of proof required to contest an authentic act. See Cowvilion v. Cowvillion, 886 So.24 474 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004), which involved a prenuptial agreement created by authentic act. Mars Beach, LUC v. McQuirter, 234 So. 34 908 (La. Ct. App. 3st Cir 2017) (Contradicted testimony of one party that he did not sign the document, “without more, i simply insufficient to disprove the authentic act.”). But see Villenuve v. Cash, 231 So. 34 682 (La. Ct. App. Ist Cir. 2017) (Testimony of witness that she did not “visually observe any signatures to the act of donation before she signed the document as a witness” was sufficient to establish that the donation was an absolute nullity.) ” Villenuve v. Cash, 231 $0.34 682 (2017) * Eschete v. Eschete 142 $0.34 985 (2014)not required to sign the document at the same time as all parties to the contract, but they must be present to witness the contracting parties’ signature. Brumfield v. Brumfield, 457 So.2d. 763 (La.App 1 Cir. 1984). ~-While this court recognized in Finance Security Co. that substantial compliance may be sufficient to meet the authentic act requirements, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Hardin recognized that the requirement for an authentic act must be strictly followed. Applying the jurisprudence to the facts presented during the trial in this matter, itis clear to this Court that the requirements of Article 1833 were not met. Ms. Deville was blatantly honest in her testimony that she observed signatures were already on the page and that she only asked those appearing before her, Chandler and Ali, were the signatures on the page their signatures. Article 1833 mandates more action on the part of the notary for an authentic act. In addition to the testimony of Ms. Deville, the witnesses testified that they not only did not go to the office of the notary, they did not sign the document in front of the notary ‘nor did they sign the document even in front of the others whose signatures are represented on the document. The testimony was very revealing in how the pieces to deceive were put into place. That deception involved multiple parties and multiple events. The version given by Ali was self- serving while the testimony of the others ~ Mr. and Mrs. Deville, McQueen and DeLaney - were more accurate reflections of the events of that day in which the cash sale was developed. Bolstering the testimony of the notary and the witnesses was that of Michael Walters. ‘As the long-time attorney of Chandler, he took the time to draft documents in preparation of a closing, which was not an unusual request since Chandler has used his services for other real estate matters. Walters received a call and was prepared for a visit from Chandler and Ali. That same day, Chandler went into Walters’ office to cancel the appointment based upon Ali's report that he received a text. Only after the subject cash sale appeared in the Clerk of Court's records did Walters have a better understanding that there was an issue. The facts of this case do not meet the requirements of Article 1833. There was no disagreement that neither Chandler nor Ali signed the document in the presence of the notary. There was no suggestion that somehow the notary was in another room when they signed or that the witnesses saw the signing and then the notary came into the room. No scenario in which the jurisprudence has struggled with the application of the elements of Article 1833 has 10been presented here. The evidence has been clear, convincing and even disturbing as to how the parties to this event were so loose with how they proceeded to finalize a sale. Any material deviation from the requirements governing authentic acts is fatal.” Questions were certainly raised as to the actions of Chandler and Ali during and after the date of the sale ~ repairs made, checks written, insurance secured and insurance cancelled. This Court has not decided this case on those actions but instead applied a strict application of Article 1833 and finds that Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 is not an authentic act therefore is not binding and is invalid, The next consideration is whether there was a contract for a cash sale and could it be considered an act by private signature as contemplated by Louisiana Civil Code Article 1839 and as previously described in Article 1836. Asale is a contract whereby a person transfers ownership of a thing to another for price in money. The thing, the price, and the consent of the parties are requirements for the perfection of a sale. La. C.C. art. 2349. Because a sale is a conventional obligation, a valid contract must exist. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties whereby obligations are created, modified, or extinguished. La. C.C. art. 1906. A contract is formed by the consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance. La. C.C. art 1927. The court must find there was a meeting of the minds of the parties to constitute the requirement of consent. Worley v. Chandler, 44,047 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/4/09), 7 So.3d 38, 41-42. Consent may be vitiated by error, fraud, or duress. La. C.C. art. 1948. Fraud is a misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with the intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss or inconvenience to the other. Fraud may also result from silence or inaction. La. C.C. art. 1953. Fraud does not vitiate consent when the party against whom the fraud was directed could have ascertained the truth without difficulty, inconvenience, or special skill. However, this exception does not apply when a relation of confidence has reasonably induced a party to rely on the other's assertions or representations. La. C.C. art. 1954. Fraud need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and may be established by circumstantial evidence. La. C.C. art. 1957. Parol evidence is permissible when error, fraud, or duress is alleged. Revision Comment (b) of La. C.C. art 1848. Even without evidence of specific statements, fraud may be proved by “highly suspicious facts and circumstances surrounding a transaction.” Skannal v. Bamburg, 44,820 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/27/10), 33 So.3d 227, 237, writ denied, 2010-0707 (La. 5/28/10), 36 So.3d 254."° Counsel for Ali suggests that since Chandler stated at trial that the signature on the cash sale appeared to be his, then the cash sale has met the expectations of an act by private signature. Argument was presented that there was a meeting of the minds for this sale — which included the thing, the price and consent to transfer. Testimony at trial was far from simple. ° Hardin v. Williams, 468 $0.24 1302, 1304 (La. App. 1st Ci.), aff d, 478 So.2d 1214 (La. 1985). * succession of Davisson, 50,830 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/22/16), 211 So. 3d 597, 609-10, writ denied, 2017-0307 (La. 4/7/11), 218 So. 34121 1There was a clear dispute over several areas especially involving money. li reported to the court that he provided cash to Chandler in the full amount of $325,000 yet had no receipt and no one saw him deliver that sum. Chandler admits he did see $200,000 however did not accept that sum because he wanted the full amount to be by cashier’s check. Chandler was adamant that he did not receive $325,000 in cash. In addition, questions were raised as to the source of the funds. Ali stated he got 2 Portion from his father and then another $55,000 was from his savings. When Ali's father testified, he did not have the same recollection, stating that he only gave his son $200,000 and that it was days before. Mr. Yousef was unaware of where the remaining funds were obtained. It is challenging to believe that when an exchange of $325,000 in cash is occurring there would not be a clear declaration for the purpose of the money and what was being given in exchange. ‘Amore formal arrangement along with a clear following of the expectations of the law for the purchase of real estate is expected. That was not done in this situation. The cash sale itself was greatly disputed and suspicious as previously described. Chandler along with the two witnesses stated that the document they believed they were si jing concerned a request for a liquor license. In addition, once the document was signed, Ali did not provide a copy of the instrument to Chandler. Chandler stated that it appeared to be his signature but was unyielding that he did not sign a cash sale deed. Chandler is familiar with documentation required for real estate transactions with evidence of real estate transactions being introduced at trial Chandler used the services of an attorney and was ready to do so in this sale as well. This Court is satisfied that the document presented as a cash sale was not what was presented to Chandler to sign. Recognizing your signature is not the same as acknowledging your signature for the Purposes of La. C.C. Art. 1836 and 1839 to transfer immovable property. Like the Skannal court, this Court finds the circumstances surrounding the execution of the cash sale deeds highly suspicious and further finds that it does not satisfy an act by private signature. The proof has ' been strong and convincing that this transaction is plagued with inconsistencies and misguidance. 2For written reasons given this date, this Court has been presented evidence that make it clearly convincing that the Cash Sale filed on March 12, 2020 in Conveyance Book 2137 at Page 597 bearing instrument number 1663692 was fraudulently secured under false pretenses and is therefore rescinded, ae aside and declared null and voi Signed this the 4 Je day of August, 2021 in Alexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana, 2BNOTICE OF SIGNING OF WRITTEN REASONS AND JUDGMENT CIVIL SUIT NUMBER 268,231 CHANDLER GROCERIES INC v. AYOUB ALI STATE OF LOUISIANA, PARISH OF RAPIDES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT on the 30" day of August 2021, Written Reasons and Judgment were signed in this case and on the 31* day of August 2021 certified copies mailed to all counsel of record and unrepresented parties. Alexandria, Louisiana, this 31% day of August 2021 CLERK OF COURT MAILED TO: Mr. William Ford Attorney at Law Post Office Box 12424 Alexandria, Louisiana 71315 Mr. Ramon Fonseca Jr Attorney at Law 921 Kaliste Saloom Road Lafayette, Louisiana 70508