117 So. 3d 217
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- FMC acquired four Prytania Street units; PSMCA was created by Declaration
- FMC performed extensive renovations and discovered an attic space that could be turned into a fifth unit
- FMC and PHP orally agreed to transfer attic ownership to FMC in exchange for renovations; amendment to the Declaration never filed
- FMC leased attic space as Unit 1918-A since 2010; PSMCA refused to amend Declaration or transfer title
- PSMCA pursued eviction, insurance cancellation, and ownership contest; FMC sued for damages or transfer of ownership
- Trial court granted several partial and final summary judgments against FMC; FMC appeal followed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FMC was a bad-faith possessor of the attic space | FMC argues there was an oral transfer and substantial reliance | PSMCA argues no valid transfer without proper amendment | Affirmed FMC was a bad-faith possessor |
| Whether summary judgment on knowledge/good faith was proper | FMC says issues of knowledge require trial | PSMCA argues lack of proper amendment and notice supports summary judgment | Affirmed without reversible error |
| Whether FMC could prevail on ownership or good-faith possession given the Declaration’s amendment requirements | FMC relies on oral agreement and Article XIV(3) | Declaration requires formal amendment with notice and writing signed by all | No valid transfer or re-designation; declaration procedures not followed |
| Whether FMC’s claim for improvements/costs and breach of contract was properly dismissed | FMC contends entitlement to value of improvements | No proper transfer; claims fail | Dismissal upheld as to those claims (abandoned or non-meritorious) |
| Whether the final dismissal with prejudice and eviction order was proper given unresolved facts | FMC asserts material facts remained | Appropriate under prior summary judgments; no need for trial | Appeal on this point abandoned; affirmed by lower court |
Key Cases Cited
- Western v. Chardonnay Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 519 So.2d 243 (La.App.5th Cir.1988) (amendment required for actions beyond authorization in declaration)
- Gunter v. Jefferson Davis Parish, 84 So.3d 705 (La.App.3 Cir.2012) (summary judgment timing and discovery relevance)
- Haney v. Delta Petroleum Co., Inc., 811 So.2d 1200 (La.App.4 Cir.2002) (summary judgment on knowledge/intent allowed with proper facts)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La.1994) (material facts; summary judgment standard; credibility issues)
- 1026 Conti Condominiums, LLC v. 1025 Bienville, LLC, 84 So.3d 778 (La.App.4 Cir.2012) (genuine issue of material fact required for trial; summary judgment limited)
- Cusimano v. Port Esplanade Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 55 So.3d 931 (La.App.4 Cir.2011) (contracts in condo declarations have force of law between unit owners)
- Cimarex Energy Co. v. Mauboules, 40 So.3d 931 (La.2010) (public records doctrine; recording affects third parties)
- Mitchell v. Clark, 448 So.2d 681 (La.1984) (oral transfers require oath-backed acknowledgment)