158 So. 3d 927
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- In Sept. 2013 Ellis Keyes (as "Executor") and Adrienne & Roger Brown signed a 14-paragraph "Rent-to-Own Purchase Agreement" for 3305 Corinne Dr., Chalmette; monthly payment stated as $750 toward a $100,000 purchase price.
- The Agreement used the term "rent" and required homeowners insurance in the name of the Estate, property maintenance, and forwarding mail; it contained a single-default provision: late payments past the 17th incur a $25 penalty and if not received "by the following month eviction proceedings will ensue."
- Keyes filed a rule to show cause seeking possession in April 2014 after alleged multiple late/partial payments and alleged failures to satisfy contract obligations; he posted a five-day eviction notice.
- Browns defended, asserting the instrument was a bond-for-deed requiring service of a 45-day cure notice under La. R.S. 9:2945 and that they had paid or timely offered payment.
- Trial court found the Browns in breach, ordered eviction and awarded $1,500 for April–May rent and costs; on appeal the Court of Appeal reviewed contract interpretation de novo and factual findings for manifest error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Browns) | Defendant's Argument (Keyes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agreement is a bond-for-deed triggering La. R.S. 9:2945 45-day cure requirement | Agreement is a bond-for-deed; statute requires 45-day notice to cure before cancellation/eviction | Agreement is not a bond-for-deed; Keyes was entitled to evict nonpaying occupants with shorter notice | Not a bond-for-deed; agreement lacks required provision to transfer title upon final payment and does not meet statute |
| Whether five-day eviction notice under lease eviction procedure was insufficient | Browns: 45-day cure required; five-day notice inadequate | Keyes: relied on eviction for nonpayment procedure and his posted five-day notice | Lease eviction statute inapplicable because instrument is not a lease; 45-day bond-for-deed cure not required here |
| Characterization of the contract (lease, option, bond-for-deed, or other) | Browns: sale/bond-for-deed (ownership at end) | Keyes: owner arranged sale/financing and may evict for nonpayment | Instrument ambiguous/deficient; court construes it as akin to a credit sale with owner-financing (innominate contract), not a lease or bond-for-deed |
| Consequences of default and recovery of rent/damages | Browns: sought protection from bond-for-deed cure period; disputed arrears | Keyes: eviction for persistent late/nonpayment; sought additional damages on appeal | Trial court properly ordered eviction and awarded past rent for months Browns remained on property after proceedings began; other damage claims by Keyes not considered on appeal because he did not file an answer/appeal on those issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazzini v. Strathman, 140 So.3d 253 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for factual findings in eviction matters)
- Berthelot v. Le Inv., L.L.C., 866 So.2d 877 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2004) (contract interpretation principles; nature of agreement controls characterization)
- Montz v. Theard, 818 So.2d 181 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2002) (focus on consequences of default for innominate contracts)
- Bradstreet v. Kinchen, 10 So.3d 331 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2009) (requirement that bond-for-deed provide for transfer of title upon final payment)
- Solet v. Brooks, 30 So.3d 96 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009) (same: bond-for-deed requires explicit conveyance provision)
- Hines v. Dance, 460 So.2d 1152 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1984) (ambiguous sale contract construed as credit sale/owner-security arrangement)
- Major Commodity Corp. v. Cunningham, 555 So.2d 525 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1989) (rules for options to buy/sell and formal requirements)