116 So. 3d 1017
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lakart Food Services, LLC was owned 60% by DePodesta and 40% by Breaux, with Lakart profitable for both.
- In 2009 Breaux and DePodesta formed Hurricane’s Kitchen, LLC to operate a kitchen at a Metairie bar; Hurricane’s was financially unsuccessful.
- On August 24, 2009 Breaux drafted a document purporting to transfer DePodesta’s 60% Lakart interest to Breaux for $30,000; DePodesta denies signing it.
- Breaux recorded the Document and presented it to Lakart’s bank; DePodesta was removed from Lakart’s account and payroll in February 2010 after learning of the Document.
- DePodesta sued for fraud, sought a ruling that the Document was null and that his Lakart ownership be reinstated; trial was bench-only in July 2012.
- The trial court found no contract of sale and thus granted judgment for DePodesta; Breaux timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a valid sale contract for Lakart interest? | DePodesta asserts no consent and fraud invalidates signing. | Breaux contends signing the Document created a binding sale. | No contract existed; consent lacking; sale not proven. |
| Did DePodesta consent to the transfer of his Lakart interest? | Consent absent; document forged; DePodesta did not know of it until 2010. | Signature appeared on document; intent to sell shown by payments and conduct. | Consent lacking; trial court properly found no sale. |
| Did Breaux commit fraud in obtaining DePodesta’s signature? | Document forged or signed under misrepresentation. | Signature appeared valid; other signatures and payments support transfer. | Fraud not proven; however, finding focuses on absence of valid consent. |
| What standard governs appellate review of factual credibility findings? | DePodesta seeks de novo review for fraud. | Review respects the trial court’s credibility determinations. | Standards defer to trial court’s credibility findings; manifest error standard applied. |
| Is DePodesta’s assignment of error properly before the court? | Requests de novo fraud review. | The issue is not properly preserved on appeal. | Not properly before the court; waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeansonne v. Attorney’s Liability Assurance Society, 891 So.2d 721 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (signatory presumed to know contents; burden to show deception)
- Tweedel v. Brasseaux, 433 So.2d 133 (La. 1983) (presumption of knowledge of writing contents; reliance burden on signatories)
- Sam Staub Enterprises, Inc. v. Chapital, 88 So.3d 690 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (contract existence is factual; manifest error review applied)
- Price v. Law Firm of Alex O. Lewis, III & Associates, 898 So.2d 608 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (contract formation elements; meeting of minds)
- Cottingim v. Vliet, 19 So.3d 26 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (credibility determinations reviewed under manifest error standard)
- Watters v. Dep’t of Social Services, 15 So.3d 1128 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (reasonableness and evidentiary review in credibility findings)
- Philips v. Berner, 789 So.2d 41 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (consent requirement in contract formation)