186 So. 3d 1225
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- In Oct 2005 DBR (Kenneth Prieur) and Max Burnell entered an oral agreement for DBR to repair/renovate three Katrina-damaged properties owned/managed by the Burnells (Lake Trail home, Kansas rental, Lexington office). No fixed price was agreed; DBR invoiced periodically.
- A July 31, 2007 Lake Trail statement showed $66,019.40 due. In early 2008 Carol Burnell issued three checks totaling $66,019.40 with “Lake Trail” memos.
- DBR applied those payments to older past-due invoices for the Kansas/Lexington work under the parties’ single oral contract and claimed $55,000 remained owed overall for the Lake Trail work.
- Burnell emailed in Oct 2008 acknowledging ~$50,000 owed; on Dec 9, 2008 he signed an acknowledgement stating $55,000 remained due and payable to DBR. No further payments were made.
- DBR sued (open account and breach of contract) in 2010; the Burnells counterclaimed for alleged overcharging and failure to assist their insurance claim. At trial DBR lacked some original invoices (disputed custody), but produced the Dec 9, 2008 letter and other testimony.
- Trial court found a single oral contract, breach by the Burnells, awarded DBR $55,000 plus interest from Dec 10, 2008 and costs. Burnells appealed; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of enforceable contract | DBR: one oral contract covered all three properties; proven by testimony and corroborating exhibits | Burnells: dispute amounts and application of payments; claim partial payments extinguished Lake Trail debt | Court: Contract existed; finding of fact not clearly wrong; one contract covered all three properties |
| Imputation of payments under C.C. art. 1864 | DBR: payments could be applied to overall contractual debt; petition pleaded work on all properties and Dec 2008 acknowledgement was not property-specific | Burnells: checks labeled “Lake Trail” show intent to pay that specific debt, so Lake Trail debt extinguished | Court: Even if payments imputed to Lake Trail, Burnells still owe for other properties under single contract; petition pleaded alternative theories allowing recovery |
| Validity of Dec 9, 2008 acknowledgement (duress) | DBR: signed acknowledgement and prior email admissions show Burnells knew amount owed | Burnells: Burnell signed under pressure/fear and did not truly believe amount owed | Court: No evidence of duress; threats to do lawful acts do not constitute duress; acknowledgement admissible |
| Sufficiency of proof for amount awarded | DBR: testimony and Dec 9 letter support $55,000 figure; award within trial court discretion | Burnells: DBR lacked full accounting and exact invoices; Mr. Prieur could not recall precise amounts | Court: Award not an abuse of discretion given evidence, admissions, and corroboration; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Read v. Willwoods Cmty., 165 So.3d 883 (La. 2015) (oral contracts and formation principles)
- Bordelon v. Comeaux Furniture & Appliance, Inc., 705 So.2d 740 (La. 1998) (implied reasonable compensation where price not agreed)
- Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000, 538 So.2d 569 (La. 1989) (same principle on reasonable sum when compensation not fixed)
- Peter Vicari Gen. Contr., Inc. v. St. Pierre, 831 So.2d 296 (La. App.) (proof required for oral contracts over statutory threshold)
- Attain v. Tripple B Holding, L.L.C., 128 So.3d 1278 (La. App.) (manifest error standard for contract existence and factual findings)
- Hernandez v. Martinez, 781 So.2d 815 (La. App.) (abuse of discretion standard for contract damages)