Bayou Rapides Corp. v. Dole
Decision Date | 27 May 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 14–906.,14–906. |
Citation | 165 So.3d 373 |
Parties | BAYOU RAPIDES CORPORATION v. Michael and Adrienne DOLE. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Charles D. Elliott, Aaron L. Green, Vilar & Elliott, LLC, Alexandria, LA, for Defendants/Appellants, Michael and Adrienne Dole.
Ronald J. Fiorenza, Eli J. Meaux, Provosty, Sadler, Delauny, Fiorenza & Sobel, Misty Shannon Antoon, Antoon Law Firm, Alexandria, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee, Bayou Rapides Corporation.
Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, BILLY H. EZELL and PHYLLIS M. KEATY, Judges.
Dr. Michael Dole and his wife Adrienne Dole (the Doles) contacted Bayou Rapides Construction (BRC) in April 2010, to discuss construction of a new, high-end, 11,900–square–foot home. The Doles contacted BRC through Bobby Hunter (Hunter), an employee of BRC with whom the Doles were acquainted. Hunter had about forty years of experience in home building, and his father had over sixty years of experience in construction. Both worked for BRC. The Doles brought their construction plans to BRC, and, based upon those plans, BRC prepared various estimates for construction of the Doles' home. Hunter and Chris Antoon (Antoon), representing BRC, met with the Doles and proposed to build the home on a cost-plus arrangement. BRC proposed to build the home for an 8% profit above the total cost of construction. The parties exchanged emails regarding BRC's proposals but, surprisingly, neither party reduced anything to writing, despite the fact that the initial proposed construction agreement involved building a $1,700,000.00 home. In the end, after many changes and additions to the project, the Doles completed the project for a total cost of $2,413,513.14.
Construction began on the home in 2010, and for the first several months of the project BRC billed at its cost–plus–8% calculation and the Doles paid accordingly. By December 2010, the Doles became uncomfortable with the cost-plus billing and asked BRC to switch to a fixed-price contract. BRC submitted a proposal to the Doles via email to complete the project for a fixed sum based on the plans and specifications provided to BRC by the Doles.
Again, work proceeded without any written agreement. BRC submitted a work schedule stating the proposed completion time frame for various aspects of the construction. As
work progressed, BRC submitted, and the Doles paid, periodic draw requests. The Doles authorized payment of the draws, and the bank funding the project paid without objection. After paying several draw requests without question, the Doles started asking for more detailed information concerning draw requests. BRC provided such information and allowed Dr. Dole the discretion to pay the draw request in his own time. On April 27, 2011, BRC suggested the parties return to a cost-plus arrangement. According to BRC this suggestion was made as a way to avoid time-consuming change orders by the Doles which it claimed were delaying the project. The Doles maintain that they and their interior designer were not the cause of delays, though they admitted to making several changes in the original plans as the project proceeded. In an email to Antoon dated July 14, 2011, Dr. Dole acknowledged that “due to the nature of the job, and the number of changes that Adrienne and [he] requested” BRC asked to change to a cost-plus arrangement. The Doles did not want to revert back to a cost-plus arrangement. The Doles admit that at least $900,000.00 of the additional expenditures on their house and guest house were due to their own changes from original plans and is not owed by BRC.
On June 22, 2011, the Doles received a draw request from BRC for $35,000.00. Although Dr. Dole had approved and paid BRC's draw requests he demanded a full audit of all previously paid invoices and refused to pay the $35,000.00 draw request until a full audit was performed. BRC and the Doles exchanged emails wherein it became apparent the Doles were not going to pay any more funds without a full forensic audit. The Doles made it known to BRC that they would hire workers to finish the construction if BRC did not acquiesce to their demands. BRC, convinced that the Doles were not going to pay the requested draw, stopped working on the project. The Doles immediately hired the same sub-contractors
who had been working on the house and eventually completed the house and guest house almost a year later for over $1,000,000.00 more than they had already paid BRC. BRC sued the Doles for the outstanding amount owed for labor and materials in the construction of their home. The Doles filed a reconventional demand asserting they were overcharged for certain labor costs and alleging the work performed by BRC was sub-standard. In addition to these damages the Doles sought recovery for non-pecuniary damages allegedly caused by BRC abruptly halting construction of the Doles' home.
Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of BRC finding there was never a contractual agreement as there had never been a meeting of the minds between the parties. The trial court awarded BRC $50,000.00 for its unjust enrichment claim, and denied all of the Doles' reconventional demands. The Doles appeal alleging ten assignments of error.
The Doles allege ten assignments of error:
It is “well-settled” law that “the existence of a contract is a finding of fact, subject to the manifest error standard of review.” Mark A. Gravel Props., LLC v. Eddie's BBQ, LLC, 14–46, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/7/14), 139 So.3d 653, 658, (citing Dubois Const. Co. v. Moncla Const. Co., Inc., 39,794 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/29/05), 907 So.2d 855 ). Thus, this court cannot set aside the trial court's finding that no contract existed between these parties unless we find the trial court was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
Coffman Homes, L.L.C. v. Sutherland, 10–178 La.App. 5 Cir. 2/15/11), 60 So.3d 52, writ denied, 11–10111 (La.6/24/11), 64 So.3d 223.
Louisiana Civil Code Article 1906 provides: “A contract is an agreement by two or more parties whereby obligations are created, modified, or extinguished.”Louisiana Civil Code Article 1927 provides:
In Gravel, 139 So.3d at 657–58 (emphasis added) (alterations in original) we explained what is necessary for the formation of a contract:
The trial court, after considering the evidence and testimony,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Levine v. Vitamin Cottage Nat. Food Mkts.
... ... Co. v. Anchor Glass Container Corp. , 157 F.3d 775, 779 ... (10th Cir. 1998)), aff'd , 811 F.3d 371 ... certain object, and (4) lawful cause. Bayou Rapides Corp ... v. Dole , 165 So.3d 373, 378 (La. Ct. App. 2015) ... ...
-
Hannie v. Colonial Oaks Al Lafayette Emp'r, LLC
... ... Bayou Rapides Corp. v. Dole , 14-906, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/27/15), 165 ... ...
-
Koonce v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
... ... In M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 072371, pp. 1314 (La.7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16, 2627, amended on reh'g ... Additionally, in Bayou Rapides Corp. v. Dole, 14906, p. 18 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/27/15), 165 So.3d ... ...
-
Reid Zeising & Dixie Rest. Grp., LLC v. Michael A. Shelton & Shelton Rest. Grp., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-2614
...v. Aggreko, LLC, 2012 WL 6738217 (W.D. La. 2012); Baker v. Maclay Properties Co., 648 So.2d 888 (La. 1995); Bayou Rapides Corp. v. Dole, 165 So.3d 373 (La. 3 Cir. 2015). ...