Patin v. Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: McDONALD, J.
• Citation: Patin v. Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P., 345 So.3d 1055 (La. App. 2022)
• Decision Date: 09 May 2022
• Docket Number: DOCKET NUMBER 2021 CA 0561
• Parties: Succession of Lucille Watts PATIN, Pamela Sue Patin Quantz, Charleen Patin Taylor, Rebel Kelley Caplinger, Denis Curtin Kelley, II, Dorcas Marie Kelley, Kerry Watts Kelley, and Patin-Kelley, LLC v. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P., David M. Charlton, and XYZ Insurance Company ("XYZ")

345 So.3d 1055

Succession of Lucille Watts PATIN, Pamela Sue Patin Quantz, Charleen Patin Taylor, Rebel Kelley Caplinger, Denis Curtin Kelley, II, Dorcas Marie Kelley, Kerry Watts Kelley, and Patin-Kelley, LLC

v.BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P., David M. Charlton, and XYZ Insurance Company ("XYZ")

DOCKET NUMBER 2021 CA 0561

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Decision Rendered: MAY 9, 2022

Rehearing Denied June 22, 2022

Scott Webre, Whitney S. Ikerd, Lafayette, Louisiana, Victor L. Marcello, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Succession of Lucille Watts Patin, Pamela Sue Patin Quantz, Charleen Patin Taylor, Rebel Kelley Caplinger, Denis Curtin Kelley, II, Dorcas Marie Kelley, Kerry Watts Kelley, and Patin-Kelley, LLC

Heather S. Duplantis, Kevin W. Welsh, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP and David M. Charlton

Melissa M. Lessell, Beverly L. Delaune, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees, Endurance American Specialty Insurance, Scottsdale Insurance Company, and Aspen Specialty Insurance

BEFORE: McDONALD, McCLENDON, PENZATO, LANIER, and WOLFE, JJ.

McDONALD, J.

In this legal malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal a judgment granting an exception of no cause of action filed by the defendant attorneys and their insurers, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, and denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file amended pleadings beyond their second supplemental and amended petition for damages. After review, we reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1998, Lucille Watts Patin retained attorney David M. Charlton of the law firm, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP (BSW), to form a limited liability company known as Patin-Kelley, LLC (PKLLC). Mr. Charlton also handled Ms. Patin's legal matters related to the management of her property and the planning of her estate. As part of that work, Mr. Charlton drafted documents whereby Ms. Patin sold her 17/18^th ownership interest - both surface and mineral rights - in an approximate 382-acre tract of land in Pointe Coupee Parish (the property) to PKLLC. In exchange for the property, Ms. Patin received a 97% membership interest in PKLLC.¹ The sale between Ms. Patin and PKLLC was recorded in the conveyance records on December 28, 1998.

In 2006, Ms. Patin and PKLLC executed an Act of Correction to the 1998 sale, because it was discovered that the 1998 sale did not include a mineral servitude in Ms. Patin's favor, even though the parties had intended that Ms. Patin reserve all of the mineral rights when she sold the property to PKLLC.² Mr. Charlton prepared the Act of Correction to correct the error in the 1998 act of sale. The Act of Correction contained language reserving a mineral servitude on the property to Ms. Patin and stating that PKLLC disclaimed any and all ownership to those mineral rights. Two witnesses signed the Act of Correction, and Ms. Patin signed on her own behalf, as well as in her capacity as the PKLLC's managing member. Mr. Charlton notarized the Act of Correction, and it was recorded in the conveyance records.

Ms. Patin died testate approximately six years later on March 13, 2012, leaving six legatees: Pamela Sue Patin Quantz, Charleen Patin Taylor, Rebel Kelley Caplinger, Denis Curtin Kelley, II, Dorcas Marie Kelley, and Kerry Watts Kelley (the Patin legatees). In her testament, Ms. Patin appointed Ms. Quantz, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Caplinger as co-executrixes of her estate. Later, Ms. Caplinger was appointed as PKLLC's manager. Mr. Charlton was retained to serve as legal counsel for Ms. Patin's succession and PKLLC.

In 2015, the Patin legatees consulted Mr. Charlton regarding a proposed sale of the property to Steven W. Kent, II, and Jana Spillman Kent. The Patin legatees communicated to Mr. Charlton that they specifically wanted to protect the mineral servitude previously reserved by Ms. Patin and to extend it for 10 years. After Mr. Charlton participated in drafting and/or reviewing the proposed sale documents, he assured the Patin legatees that those documents did retain their mineral servitude for 10 years. Ms. Patin's succession and PKLLC sold the property to the Kents on February 11, 2015, and the sale was recorded in the conveyance records the next day.

In late 2017, multiple oil and gas companies approached the Patin legatees with interest in leasing the property for exploration; however, after conducting a title search, these entities "backed off" and told the Patin legatees that the mineral servitude had not been extended for 10 years after the 2015 sale of the property to the Kents and would soon prescribe from nonuse. The Patin legatees sought counsel from Mr. Charlton, who confirmed that the 2015 sale did not extend the mineral servitude for 10 years and the servitude would extinguish in 2019, if not interrupted by proper oil and gas explorations before that time.³ According to the Patin legatees, Mr. Charlton did not thereafter respond to them about the mineral servitude ownership.

On February 5, 2018, the Patin legatees and PKLLC (the Patin plaintiffs) filed this legal malpractice suit against Mr. Charlton and BSW, alleging that Mr. Charlton had breached his obligation to properly handle their legal matters and that BSW was vicariously liable. They further alleged that Mr. Charlton had not taken appropriate steps to preserve their valuable mineral servitude for a full 10 years after the 2015 sale of the property to the Kents, by having PKLLC execute a formal acknowledgement of the succession's servitude prior to the 2015 sale. The Patin plaintiffs also alleged that Mr. Charlton's breach of duty caused them grave damages, because they would prematurely lose their mineral servitude on the property to the Kents. Over a year later, the Patin plaintiffs filed a first supplemental and amended petition, adding Scottsdale Insurance Company, Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company,⁴ and Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, BSW's malpractice insurers, as additional defendants.

All defendants answered the suit. Mr. Charlton and BSW then filed an exception of no cause of action. Essentially, these defendants maintained that PKLLC is the owner of a mineral servitude on the property that, by operation of law, will not expire until 2025 at the earliest. Therefore, Mr. Charlton and BSW argued that the Patin plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to establish any damages resulting from Mr. Charlton's conduct. The malpractice insurers joined in and adopted the exception of no cause of action.

On December 3, 2019, the Patin plaintiffs filed a second supplemental and amended petition and reiterated that the 2006 Act of Correction between Ms. Patin and PKLLC was a valid authentic act that correctly reserved a mineral servitude to Ms. Patin, just as the parties always intended with the 1998 sale. The 2006 Act of Correction and the 1998 sale were both attached to the amended petition. The Patin plaintiffs also alleged that their efforts in 2018 to commence oil and gas operations on the property were unsuccessful, and the mineral servitude prescribed in December of that year, at a time when oil and gas exploration companies were "aggressively" leasing properties in the area.⁵

After a hearing, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, granting the exception of no cause of action, and dismissing the Patin plaintiffs’ petition with prejudice. The judgment was signed on January 11, 2021. In oral reasons, the trial court found that PKLLC owned the mineral servitude at least until 2025 and, thus, there was no damage from Mr. Charlton's alleged legal malpractice. The trial court further reasoned that the 2006 Act of Correction did not create a mineral servitude in favor of Ms. Patin, because an act of correction could not make a substantive change to the 1998 sale of the property. Thus, according to the trial court, when PKLLC sold the property to the Kents in 2015, PKLLC still owned both the surface and mineral rights and had properly reserved a mineral servitude in the sale to the Kents at that time. Additionally, the trial court did not allow the Patin plaintiffs to amend their petition again, since they had already tried and failed to state a cause of action in prior amendments.

The Patin plaintiffs appeal from the adverse judgment, claiming the trial court erred: (1) in granting the defendants’ exception of no cause of action and failing to grant the Patin plaintiffs leave to amend their petition, and (2) in finding the 2006 Act of Correction was invalid.

DISCUSSION

Legal Malpractice Cause of Action

The peremptory exception of no cause of action questions whether the law affords the plaintiff any remedy under the allegations of the petition. The exception is triable solely on the face of the petition and any attached written exhibits. La. C.C.P. arts. 853 and 931 ; Agrifund, LLC v. Radar Ridge Planting Co., Inc., 19-1528 (La. 11/25/19), 283 So.3d 492 (per curiam); Baca v. Sabine River Authority, 18-1046 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/18), 271 So.3d 223, 227, writ denied, 19-0149 (La. 3/18/19), 267 So.3d 95. The court must presume all well-pleaded facts are true, must make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and must resolve any doubts in favor of the petition's sufficiency. The exceptor bears the burden of showing that the plaintiff has not stated a cause of action. The appellate court performs a de novo review of a district court's ruling on an exception of no cause of action. Cheniere Constr., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 19-1471 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/18/20), 313 So.3d 992, 994, writ denied, 20-01194 (La. 12/8/20), 306 So.3d 431.

Generally speaking, Louisiana law recognizes a legal malpractice cause of action in favor of a client injured as a result of his attorney's negligent representation. LeBlanc v. Alfred, 15-0397 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/17/15), 185 So.3d 768, 774. To establish a legal malpractice cause of action, a...