Lacaze v. State, Department of Transportation & Development

Consent was not vitiated by fraud in this case. The trial court was clearly wrong in the finding that the agents told the La-Cazes “that the purpose of the deed was only to purchase the land and their rights to severance damages would remain and have to be handled by another department”. The testimony simply does not impute such a declaration to the agents. If the LaCazes got that impression, it was an unreasonable one. It was an inference not justified by this record.

I have read and reread the trial testimony, and LaCaze nowhere says that the agents told him that if he signed the deed he…