309 So.3d 408
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Dwayne Alexander alleges he entered an oral contract (Jan. 29, 2015) to provide campaign consulting for Jeff Landry and later sought payment (initially $250,000; later demanded $175,000 via letters in 2017).
- Landry for Louisiana, Inc. and Jeff Landry filed a declaratory-judgment petition saying Alexander volunteered and is owed nothing; Alexander also filed suit in Orleans Parish, leading to lis pendens issues and dismissal there.
- Harvey Gulf International Marine, LLC and its CEO Shane Guidry intervened, denying any personal or corporate obligation and seeking declaratory relief that they owed Alexander nothing.
- Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting no written guaranty or written contract existed and that suretyship must be written; Alexander alleged Guidry orally agreed to pay or guarantee fees and had a pecuniary interest.
- The trial court granted Appellees' motion and declared they owed Alexander no compensation; on appeal the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment on the pleadings but affirmed the declaratory judgment that, on the record, Appellees did not contract in writing to pay Alexander.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment on the pleadings for Appellees was proper | Alexander: pleadings allege Guidry/Harvey Gulf agreed orally to pay or guarantee his fees; factual disputes exist | Appellees: no written contract or guaranty; suretyship/guaranty must be in writing; no allegations against Harvey Gulf | Reversed: factual conflicts in the pleadings (possibility of primary obligation/pecuniary interest) preclude judgment on the pleadings |
| Whether parol evidence can be used to prove a promise to pay a third party's debt | Alexander: alleged Guidry had a pecuniary interest (rewarded position), so parol evidence may prove a primary obligation | Appellees: parol evidence inadmissible for suretyship; promise to pay a third party's debt requires writing | Held: parol evidence may be admissible if promisor assumed a primary obligation or had a sufficient pecuniary interest; whether that exists is a fact question |
| Whether a contract of guaranty/suretyship must be written | Alexander: argues oral agreement or primary obligation may exist | Appellees: guaranty/suretyship must be express and written under La. law | Court: Suretyship/guaranty generally must be in writing; but exception exists if promisor assumed a primary obligation — factual inquiry required |
| Whether declaratory judgment that Appellees owed nothing should be sustained | Alexander: opposes dismissal; claims factual basis for recovery against Guidry/Harvey Gulf | Appellees: sought declaratory relief; pointed to lack of written contract and lack of pleadings against Harvey Gulf | Affirmed in part: trial court did not abuse discretion in declaring no written contracts alleged and no contractual obligation by Harvey Gulf or Guidry individually on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Gadrel, L.L.C. v. Williams, 241 So.3d 508 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2018) (standard and limits for judgment on the pleadings)
- Peter Vicari Gen. Contractor, Inc. v. St. Pierre, 831 So.2d 296 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2002) (one witness plus corroboration required to prove an oral contract over $500)
- Fontenot v. Miss Cathie's Plantation, Inc., 634 So.2d 1380 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1994) (parol evidence admissible when promisor assumes primary obligation)
- S. Air Conditioning of New Orleans, Inc. v. Cumberland Homes, Inc., 418 So.2d 745 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1982) (exception to parol rule when promisor has business/pecuniary interest)
- Seashell, Inc. v. Simon, 398 So.2d 99 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1981) (distinguishing primary vs. collateral obligations for parol admissibility)
- Lucky Coin Mach. Co. v. J.O.D. Inc., 166 So.3d 998 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (contract of suretyship/guaranty must be express and in writing)