## Facts

- Mr. Manichia made an irrevocable inter vivos donation of a tract of land and its buildings to his niece, Ms. Mahoney, and his nephew, Mr. Garell.
- The act of donation was executed in proper authentic form (notarized and witnessed), and the donees accepted the donation.
- At the time of the donation, Mr. Manichia kept other property valued at nearly $170,000.
- Several years later, Mr. Manichia filed suit against Mahoney and Garell seeking to have the donation declared null.
- Mr. Manichia alleged that he could no longer support himself financially and claimed the donation violated Louisiana law limiting donations that leave a donor without sufficient means for subsistence.
- Mahoney and Garell moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact that the donation was prohibited when made.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mahoney and Garell, dismissing Manichia’s nullity claim; Manichia appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an inter vivos donation is null under Louisiana’s “subsistence” limitation when the donor later claims financial need, despite having retained substantial property at the time of the donation.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the donees showed the donor had significant retained assets at the time of the donation and the donor failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute that the donation violated the subsistence rule when made.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Mahoney and Garell.
- The court treated the relevant time for evaluating the subsistence limitation as the time the donation was made, not years later when the donor’s finances may have changed.
- Evidence that Manichia retained property worth nearly $170,000 at the time of the donation supported the conclusion that the donation did not leave him without sufficient means of support when executed.
- Manichia did not produce evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that, at the time of the donation, he lacked enough property for subsistence or that the donation was otherwise null under the cited limitation.

## Legal Principles

- Louisiana law limits inter vivos donations that leave the donor without enough property for his own subsistence; the inquiry focuses on the donor’s means at the time of the donation.
- A later decline in the donor’s financial condition, by itself, does not establish that the donation was prohibited when made.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the mover shows the absence of factual support for an essential element of the opponent’s claim and the opponent fails to produce evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.
- Pro se pleadings may be read liberally, but self-representation does not remove the obligation to produce evidence required to defeat summary judgment.

## Conclusion

*Manichia v. Mahoney* affirmed summary judgment refusing to nullify an irrevocable inter vivos donation of immovable property where the donor’s challenge rested on later financial hardship, but the record showed he retained substantial assets at the time of the donation and he failed to present evidence raising a genuine factual dispute that the donation violated Louisiana’s subsistence-based limitation when executed.


Manichia v. Mahoney, 45 So. 3d 618 (2010)