Richard v. Comeaux

• Decision Date: 03 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. 93-171,93-171
• Citation: 626 So.2d 507
• Parties: Randy RICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David COMEAUX, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 507

626 So.2d 507

Randy RICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David COMEAUX, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 93-171.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1993.

Writ Denied Jan. 28, 1994.

Robert E. Fruge, Sunset, for Randy Richard.

George Stubbs Bourgeois Jr., Opelousas, for David Comeaux, et al.

Before STOKER, DOUCET and SAUNDERS, JJ.

SAUNDERS, Judge.

This dispute arose when neither party sought ownership of Late Night Bunny, a mare with a bad case of "parrot mouth," a degenerative equine disease marked by a pronounced overbite that leads to the horse's eventual inability to eat. Randy Richard, plaintiff-appellee herein, claims that he paid codefendant-appellant, David Comeaux, $1,800.00 for the quarterhorse upon the assurance that Comeaux would receive and forward registration papers from the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) within thirty (30) days. Comeaux admits plaintiff was assured that the horse could be registered, but argues that he made no representation that he (Comeaux) would personally have the horse registered.

Richard paid Comeaux $1,800.00 for the horse on September 15, 1990. Plaintiff on several occasions made demand that the horse be registered. On July 17, 1991, plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract due to the long running unregistered status of the horse. Defendants excepted to any claims arising for redhibitory vices on the animal on grounds that plaintiff's claims had prescribed two months after the sale, LSA-C.C. art. 2535, and generally denied plaintiff's charges as to the breach of contract claims. The trial court issued reasons for judgment which granted defendants' peremptory exception as to the redhibitory vices, but nonetheless rescinded the sale after ruling in favor of plaintiff on the contract issue:

"The Plaintiff claims the Defendant sold him an unsound horse, based on the fact that the horse had a parrot mouth.

"The dispute boils down to an appraisal of the testimony of a veterinarian on behalf of the Plaintiff, and a 'horse trader' on behalf of the Defendant.

"The Court, after hearing them both, has no problem in finding that the testimony of the veterinarian must and should prevail.

"Accordingly, the Court finds the Defendant sold to the Plaintiff an unsound horse; and, the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the redhibition finding.

"However, the Plaintiff did not file within the two months, as required by Article 2535 R.C.C.; therefore, the action in redhibition is prescribed.

"However, the Plaintiff also filed for 'Breach of Contract' on another ground. That is, that the Defendant was supposed to get the horse 'registered'. At time of suit, the horse was 'unregistered'; but, after suit was filed, the Defendant got busy and got the horse registered. The Bill of Sale is dated 9-15-90 (P-2). Suit was filed July 17, 1991. The Registration is dated March 3, 1992. (D-9).

"This case is strikingly similar to Fuselier 266 So.2nd 531 (cited by both attorneys) except that in Fuselier it finally turned out the horse couldn't be registered.

"The Plaintiff says registration was supposed to be forthcoming. The Defendant says there was no time set. Accordingly, even if we take the testimony of the Defendant, the Defendant would have a reasonable time. When the Defendant got busy and put his mind to it (after suit was filed, of course), it didn't take him long to accomplish this purpose. The Defendant was a 'pro' and certainly could have gotten the horse registered sooner.

"The Court believes and finds the Defendant exceeded a reasonable time in registering the horse,--even after suit was filed,--and so breached the contract.

"The Court will give the Defendant the benefit of the doubt with respect to the animus of the Defendant and sets the Plaintiff's damages at the price of the horse, which is $1800.00, upon return of the horse.

"The Plaintiff spent money for upkeep, etc., but also got use and employment of the horse, which, in my opinion, offset any claim for damages."

Only defendants appealed the judgment of the trial court. Ordinarily this court will only review issues submitted to the trial court and assigned as errors on appeal. Rule 1-3, Uniform Rules--Courts of Appeal (West 1993); LeBlanc v. LeBlanc, 600 So.2d 160, 162 (La.App. 3d Cir.1992). Plaintiff's arguments on appeal include prayers for attorney's fees and other relief. However, plaintiff filed no appeal of his own; therefore, our inquiry is limited to the contractual issues raised by defendants on appeal. As to these, a careful review of the trial transcript and pleadings furnishes no basis for upsetting the factual or legal findings of the trial court. Thus, we affirm in toto the conclusions of that much respected tribunal.

The trial judge who heard the evidence firsthand and had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses found that Comeaux promised to have the horse registered. This finding was corroborated by Richard and his wife, Jenny Richard. While defendant maintains that he made no assertions that he would have the animal registered, the trial judge was persuaded that this recollection was flawed. We have reviewed the pleadings, evidence, and transcript and find no error in the trial court's factual findings.

"It is well settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or a jury's finding of fact in the absence of 'manifest error' or unless it is 'clearly wrong,' and where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330, 1333 (La.1978); Canter v. Koehring, 283 So.2d 716, 724 (La.1973). See also, Sevier v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 497 So.2d 1380, 1383 (La.1986); West v. Bayou Vista Manor, Inc., 371 So.2d 1146, 1150 (La.1979); Davis v. Owen, 368 So.2d 1052, 1056 (La.1979); Cadiere v. West Gibson Products Co., 364 So.2d 998, 999 (La.1978); A. Tate, 'Manifest Error' Further observations on appellate review of facts in Louisiana civil cases, 22 La.L.Rev. 605, 611 (1962)."

Rosell v. Esco, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989).

As the lower court states, the case sub judice is not unlike Fusilier v. Ardoin, 266 So.2d 531 (La.App. 3d Cir.1972). In both, trial courts granted exceptions of prescription based on redhibition, yet ultimately rescinded sales of horses by vendors who obligated themselves to confirm the horse's pedigree then failed to do so. For present purposes, it is of no moment that in Fusilier the agreement was in writing and here it is not, for such oral agreements are permitted provided they be proven by at least one credible witness and corroborative evidence. LSA-C.C. art. 1846.

"C.C. art. 1846 requires that an oral contract in excess of $500 must be proven by at least one witness and other corroborating evidence. A party may offer his own testimony in support of a claim of an oral contract in excess of $500 but must show other circumstances which corroborate his claim. Although corroboration is required, only general corroboration must be shown, not independent proof of every detail of his testimony. 'The question of whether evidence offered by the plaintiff corroborates his claim under an oral contract is a finding to be made by the trier of fact, and is therefore not subject to reversal unless clearly wrong.' Lee Eyster & Associates, Inc. v. Favor, 504 So.2d 580, 582 (La.App. 4 Cir.1987), writ denied, 507 So.2d 232 (La.1987)."

Taylor v. Dowden, 563 So.2d 1294, 1297 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writs denied, 568 So.2d 1057 (La.1990). Both plaintiff and his wife attested to the contract's terms and this testimony was sufficient in light of all of the corroborative evidence.

"It is well settled that a party in the litigation may serve as his own 'credible witness' in fulfilling the requirements of this article. Ville Platte Concrete v. Western Cas. & Sur., 399 So.2d 1320 (La.App. 3d Cir.1981); O'Rourke v. Tracy, 375 So.2d 747 (La.App....