166 So. 3d 1082
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2004 Deborah Elmer (lessor) and Glenn Davis (lessee) entered a written lease-purchase agreement giving Davis options to buy (by May 15, 2010) or market/sell the property (by Nov. 15, 2010); Davis failed to exercise options.
- Davis remained in possession after option periods expired, then surrendered possession and stopped paying rent on January 15, 2011; Elmer sold the property July 1, 2011.
- Plaintiffs (Melanie Davis, later joined by Glenn Davis) sued in 2013 seeking compensation for improvements Davis made to the property and alleged breach of the lease-purchase agreement.
- Elmer moved for summary judgment arguing the lease reconducted to month-to-month but that substantive option rights expired with the fixed term; she produced the lease and an uncontradicted affidavit of surrender.
- Plaintiffs opposed with a purported (unsigned/unnotarized) affidavit and documents, claiming unjust enrichment; trial court excluded a letter exhibit as hearsay, granted summary judgment for Elmer, and dismissed the claim.
- On appeal the court struck the excluded letter from the appellate record and affirmed summary judgment, holding unjust enrichment inapplicable because contract/statutory remedies govern lessee improvements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist to preclude summary judgment on unjust enrichment | Davis: equitable recovery is warranted because Elmer was enriched by improvements Davis made and no adequate remedy exists | Elmer: lease controls rights; Davis abandoned possession and option rights expired; no factual support for unjust enrichment elements | No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed — unjust enrichment unavailable where contract or statutory remedies apply |
| Whether option rights survived reconduction/month-to-month tenancy | Davis: implied continuation or equitable rights to be paid for improvements | Elmer: unexercised options terminate with fixed term; reconduction does not extend substantive options | Options did not survive; substantive option rights ended with the lease term |
| Admissibility of plaintiff exhibit (April 21, 2011 letter) on appeal | Plaintiffs implicitly: exhibit should be considered as part of record | Elmer: trial court excluded it as hearsay; it should be stricken from appellate record because no written motion to strike below | Court granted motion to strike the letter from appellate record (trial court properly refused to consider it on summary judgment) |
| Whether lessee has remedy under Civil Code for improvements preventing unjust enrichment claim | Davis: unjust enrichment is proper because Elmer benefited without paying Davis | Elmer: Civil Code article 2695 and lease provisions provide remedies for improvements, precluding unjust enrichment | Court held Civil Code remedies and contract govern; unjust enrichment doctrine does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Champagne v. Ward, 893 So.2d 773 (La. 2005) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Revere v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 923 So.2d 101 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005) (materiality defined by applicable substantive law)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. CBC Temporary Staffing Services, Inc., 897 So.2d 647 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Harvey v. Surles, 228 So.2d 167 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1969) (unjust enrichment inapplicable where lease contract governs lessee improvements)
- Williams v. Bass, 847 So.2d 80 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2003) (unexercised option rights terminate with original lease term)