Mitchell v. Bertolla

• Decision Date: 04 September 1974
• Docket Number: Nos. 12374,12375,s. 12374
• Citation: 300 So.2d 209
• Parties: Ruth W. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Denny L. BERTOLLA, Defendant-Appellee. Denny L. BERTOLLA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruth W. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 209

300 So.2d 209

Ruth W. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Denny L. BERTOLLA, Defendant-Appellee.

Denny L. BERTOLLA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruth W. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 12374, 12375.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Sept. 4, 1974.

Rehearing En Banc. Denied Oct. 1, 1974.

Writ Refused Nov. 22, 1974.

Hal R. Henderson, Arcadia, and Holloway, Baker, Culpepper & Brunson by Bobby L. Culpepper, Jonesboro, for appellant Ruth Mitchell.

John M. Stewart, Arcadia, for appellee Denny Bertolla.

Before BOLIN, HALL and WILLIAMS, JJ.

HALL, Judge.

Appellant, Ruth Woodard Mitchell, appeals from adverse judgments in two consolidated cases (1) rejecting her demands in a suit to cancel a lease and option to purchase granted by her to appellee, Denny L. Bertolla, and (2) ordering her to specifically perform the option to purchase in a suit by Bertolla seeking that relief. We affirm the judgments of the district court.

On May 13, 1971, Mrs. Mitchell granted a lease and option to purchase to Bertolla, affecting two tracts of land in Bienville Parish, one containing 160 acres and one containing 381 acres. The lease was for a three-year term and provided for a monthly rental of $75 due on the 15th of each month. Bertolla was granted the option to purchase at any time during the term of the lease the entire property for $80,000, or the 160 acre tract for $25,000 and the 381 acre tract for $55,000.

On January 21, 1972, Mrs. Mitchell filed suit against Bertolla to cancel the lease for non-payment of the monthly rental due December 15, 1971 and January 15, 1972. Bertolla answered, alleging payment of the rental in accordance with the agreement.

Bertolla filed a separate suit against Mrs. Mitchell alleging he exercised the option to purchase the 160 acre tract by letter of January 18, 1973, and praying for specific performance. By supplemental petition, Bertolla exercised the option to purchase the 381 acre tract. Mrs. Mitchell answered, alleging the option expired before being exercised by reason of non-payment of rental and, alternatively, that the option was invalid because of lesion beyond moiety.

At trial, the issues narrowed down into two specific factual questions: (1) did Bertolla make the rental payments due December 15, 1971 and January 15, 1972, and (2) was the price stipulated in the option less than one-half the actual value of the land on the date the option was granted? The district court, in well-considered written reasons for judgment, reviewed and analyzed the evidence and resolved both issues in favor of Bertolla.

On the question of whether the rental payments were made, we adopt the findings of the district court:

'Due to the evidence which was adduced on the trial of this matter the Court feels constrained to conclude that the lessee, Mr. Bertolla, made the rental payments which were due on December 15, 1971, and January 15, 1972, and that they were received or should have been received by the lessor, Ruth W. Mitchell. In the opinion of the Court it would be manifestly unfair and create an injustice to Mr. Bertolla to conclude otherwise. Mr. Bertolla gave testimony to the effect that prior to the due date of the December 15, 1971, rental, he had verbally notified Ruth W. Mitchell that he exercised or would exercise the option on the 160 acre tract and that he had been informed by her that the agreement was invalid and that she would not perform thereunder. He stated that after seeking legal advice, he was advised that it would be to his best interest to make future rental payments through a third party and that pursuant thereto he instructed his bank, Minden Bank and Trust Company, Minden, Louisiana, to make the rental payments to Ruth W. Mitchell each month by their bank money order by withdrawing money from his checking account each month to do so. Mrs. Mitchell disputed the testimony given by Mr. Bertolla to the effect that they had had any verbal conversation with respect to the option prior to the due date of the December 15, 1971, rental. In any event, Mr. Don Moore, an employee of Minden Bank and Trust Company, Minden, Louisiana, testified that pursuant to instructions received from Mr. Bertolla his bank sent bank money orders made payable to Mrs. Mitchell which were dated and mailed to Mrs. Mitchell on December 10, 1971, and January 10, 1972. He stated that the bank had also made monthly rental payments to Mrs. Mitchell or had attempted to make them for all months subsequent thereto up to and including the time of the trial. He further testified that the bank money orders dated December 10, 1971, and January 10, 1972, were not cashed or had not been tendered for payment to his bank but that they were not returned to the bank by the United States Post Office Department. However, the first two rental payments, aforesaid, were not mailed registered or certified mail but all refused by Mrs. Mitchell and returned refused by Mrs. Mitchel and returned by the U.S. Postal Service at Ringgold, Louisiana. It was also his testimony that Mrs. Mitchell had previously been a customer of his bank, that his bank had communicated with her by mail on numerous occasions in the past, which had been addressed to her simply 'Ringgold, Louisiana,' that the letters had never been returned by...