Favrot v. Favrot
68 So. 3d 1099
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mortimer Favrot and Henry Shane owned the Favrot-Shane firm; Mortimer planned succession with the brothers James and Semmes.
- On Sept. 23, 2003, Mortimer signed stock transfer agreements whereby James would receive 55% and Semmes 45% of Mortimer’s stock if both remained full-time for three years; otherwise 100% to the remaining brother.
- On Oct. 22, 2003, an employment compensation agreement allowed involuntary termination in the firm’s sole discretion and set Semmes’s full-time start date at Jan. 1, 2004; both brothers were at-will employees thereafter.
- In March 2005 Mortimer fired Semmes; James remained employed and was entitled to purchase Mortimer’s stock; the parties later renegotiated terms to fund a trust and provide Semmes with a line of credit.
- Semmes sued James initially for injunctions, later adding breach of contract and tortious interference claims; the trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the added claims.
- The appellate posture involved converting Semmes’ appeal to a supervisory writ since the partial summary judgment was non-final; the court ultimately granted the writ and amended the judgment to dismiss Semmes’ suit with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract viability | Semmes; James had contractual obligations under stock transfer agreement. | James owed no enforceable obligation to Semmes under the agreement terms. | James entitled to judgment as a matter of law; no essential obligation proved. |
| Tortious interference viability | Semmes alleges James interfered with Semmes’s employment-related contract. | At-will employment provides no protectable contract for interference by a corporate officer. | James entitled to judgment as a matter of law; no legally protected contract exists. |
| Appellate procedure and supervisory writ | Partial summary judgment should be reviewable on appeal. | Partial final judgments require designation; supervisory writ is appropriate. | Appeal converted to a writ; supervisory relief granted; amended judgment dismissing Semmes with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herlitz Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La.1981) (courts may exercise supervisory jurisdiction at any time)
- Regions Bank v. Weber, 53 So.3d 1284 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (interlocutory judgments reviseable before final judgment)
- 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney, 538 So.2d 228 (La.1989) (tortious interference with contract requires a protected contract or interest)
- Bains v. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n of Greater New Orleans, 969 So.2d 646 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (at-will employment limitations on interference claims; detrimental reliance nuances)
- Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co., 820 So.2d 542 (La.2002) (employment-at-will default rule; contractual terms govern interference claims)
- Livingston Downs Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. Louisiana State Racing Com’n, 675 So.2d 1214 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1996) (distinguishes discretionary supervisory jurisdiction from appellate rights)