Whitbeck v. Champagne
149 So. 3d 372
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Champagnes contracted to buy Whitbecks’ Big Lake home for $450,000 under a Louisiana RESA; 15-day inspection allowed with opportunity to terminate or request remedies, otherwise deemed acceptance; sale proceeded with an as-is waiver and redhibition/price-reduction waivers; mold rumors arose, inspections offered but not pursued by Champagnes; Whitbecks pursued specific performance and related relief; trial court granted summary judgment for specific performance, deposit retention, costs, and later attorney fees (to be determined) with broker fees possibly awarded; on appeal, Champagnes challenge summary judgment, and Whitbecks challenge denial of broker fees and seek appellate attorney fees; appellate court affirms summary judgment and awards appellate attorney fees to Whitbecks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the contract’s clear terms support specific performance? | Champagne breach by failing to close; contract clear. | Champagnes contest material facts to avoid performance. | Yes; specific performance upheld. |
| Was denial of broker fees proper? | Broker fees authorized by contract; should be awarded. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying broker fees. | Affirmed denial of broker fees. |
| Does provided stipulated damages bar mitigation duty? | Stipulated damages govern recovery; mitigate not required. | Mitigation applicable under Article 2002. | Mitigation not required; stipulated damages enforceable. |
| Are appellate attorney fees permissible and adequately awarded? | Appeal-related fees justified by underlying judgment. | Attorney fees on appeal contested. | Award of $2,500 for appellate attorney fees affirmed. |
| Is the waiver of redhibition/fitness defenses enforceable in this sale? | Waiver clear and unambiguous; allowed by contract. | Waiver insufficiently explained or asserted. | Waiver enforceable; specific performance upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lombardo v. Deshotel, 647 So.2d 1086 (La. 1994) (stated damages and specific performance framework under Article 1986 (no mitigation when stipulations exist))
- Ross v. Premier Imports, 704 So.2d 17 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1997) (seller may limit obligations if waiver clear and unambiguous)
- Keaty v. Moss Motors, Inc., 638 So.2d 684 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1994) (waiver must be clear, in contract, and brought to buyer’s attention)
- Stumpf v. Richardson, 748 So.2d 1225 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1999) (courts cannot undermine contract for perceived bad deal; specific performance remedy appropriate)
- Charter Sch. of Pine Grove v. St. Helena Parish Sch. Bd., 9 So.3d 209 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2009) (specific performance discretion under Article 1986; contract-driven remedy)