76 So. 3d 497
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Guest House filed an open account suit on Dec 4, 2009 against Sam Hills, individually and for Leroy Gilley, seeking $9,159.95 for Gilley’s care.
- Admission Agreement dated Sept 5, 2008 listed Gilley as the resident and “Responsible Party,” with Hills signing as the Responsible Party.
- Trial court held Hills’s signature as “Authorized Agent and/or health care surrogate” did not obligate Hills personally; Gilley was the responsible party.
- Court found the contract unclear on who was the responsible party and Hills’s capacity; no evidence Hills was Gilley’s succession representative under La. C.C.P. art. 734.
- Guest House appealed, arguing the trial court misinterpreted the contract; the agreement was clear that Gilley was responsible.
- Judgment dismissed Guest House’s claims against Hills with prejudice; Guest House appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Admission Agreement ambiguous as to the responsible party and Hills’s signing capacity? | Hills signed as responsible party in his individual capacity and for the resident. | Gilley is the responsible party; Hills signed only as agent. | Yes, ambiguous; de novo review needed. |
| May extrinsic evidence be used to interpret the contract when ambiguous? | Extrinsic evidence appropriate to ascertain the parties’ intent. | Contract terms inside four corners suffice; extrinsic evidence not needed. | Extrinsic evidence considered; ambiguity found. |
| Was Hills the proper party under La. C.C.P. art. 734 (succession/authority) to be liable? | Hills acted as authorized agent/health care surrogate for Gilley. | No evidence Hills was Gilley’s succession representative; no liability. | Guest House failed to establish Hills as proper party under Article 734. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amitech U.S.A., Ltd. v. Nottingham Constr. Co., 57 So.3d 1043 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2010) (contract ambiguity and extrinsic evidence principles applied to determine intent)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (application of de novo review where error skews factual findings on contract interpretation)
- Campbell v. Melton, 817 So.2d 69 (La. 2002) (ambiguous terms; construction against drafter)
- Amitech U.S.A., Ltd. v. Nottingham Constr. Co., 57 So.3d 1043 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2010) (reemphasizes contract interpretation from four corners; parol evidence when ambiguous)