Seab v. Furlow
| Decision Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 54,461-CA |
| Citation | 338 So.3d 1244 |
| Parties | Larry Wayne SEAB, Jr., and Dorothy Ann Tauscher Seab, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Donny FURLOW, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
WATSON, McMILLIN & STREET, LLP, By: W. Michael Street, Monroe, Counsel for Appellant
BREITHAUPT, DUBOS & WOLLESON, LLC, By: R. Alan Breithaupt, James R. Close, Monroe, Counsel for Appellees
DANA S. BENSON, In Proper Person, Defendant-Appellee
Before PITMAN, STONE, and COX, JJ.
This suit arises out of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. Donny Furlow filed a statement of claim against Larry Wayne Seab, Jr. and Dorothy Ann Tauscher Seab under the Louisiana Private Works Act, La. R.S. 9:4801, et seq . The Seabs then filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Mr. Furlow and the Ouachita Parish Clerk of Court, requesting that the Clerk of Court be ordered to cancel Mr. Furlow's statement of claim. The trial court granted the writ of mandamus in favor of the Seabs and granted their damages request. Mr. Furlow now appeals. For the following reasons, we reverse the granting of the writ and the award of damages and attorney fees and remand for further proceedings.
The Seabs own Lots 32 and 33 in Eagle Ridge Subdivision. They hired Dennie Huddleston, a general contractor, to build their house. Mr. Huddleston subcontracted with Mr. Furlow to perform floor and tile work.
Mr. Furlow filed a statement of claim (hereafter referred to as a "lien") on February 28, 2019, in the Ouachita Parish public records. He stated he was a subcontractor for Mr. Huddleston and was owed $14,100 for labor and materials in floor and tile work on the following property:
LOT 33, EAGLE RIDGE SUBDIVISION, SEC. 16, TOWNSHIP 18, RANGE 3, having a Municipal Address of 100 Vayda Mae Lane, West Monroe, LA 71291.
On January 31, 2020, when the lien was not paid, Mr. Furlow filed a separate suit against the Seabs and Mr. Huddleston. At this point, Mr. Furlow hired an attorney to assist him; he did not have an attorney assist him in filing the statement of claim. In the suit, Mr. Furlow described the property as:
Lots 32 & 33 Eagle Ridge Subdivision, A Planned Residential Development situated in Sections 16 & 25, Township 18 North, Range 3 East, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana as per plat filed in Plat Book 27, page 57 (DR# 1743930) of the records of the Ouachita Parish Clerk of Court.
On October 16, 2020, the Seabs sent a letter to Mr. Furlow demanding the lien be cancelled pursuant to La. R.S. 9:4833. The Seabs claimed Mr. Furlow was paid $11,500 by Mr. Huddleston in connection with the work performed. Mr. Furlow did not voluntarily cancel the lien.
On January 21, 2021, the Seabs filed a petition for writ of mandamus against Mr. Furlow and the Ouachita Parish Clerk of Court. They asserted that Mr. Furlow's lien should be cancelled because it described only Lot 33 of Eagle Ridge Subdivision and although he included an invoice, it did not specify the amount owed for each item. They claimed their general contractor, Mr. Huddleston, transferred funds to Mr. Furlow and any additional claims by Mr. Furlow are either inaccurate or unsubstantiated.
The Clerk of Court answered the petition and stated she is without knowledge of the facts contained in the petition, except that she is the Clerk of Court and Mr. Furlow did file a statement of claim. Mr. Furlow answered the petition and denied that his charges were inaccurate or unsubstantiated. He stated Lots 32 and 33 are adjoining lots with the same municipal address.
Trial was held on April 8 and 9, 2021. Mr. Seab testified that he hired Mr. Huddleston to build his house on Lots 32 and 33 of Eagle Ridge Subdivision. He stated that Mr. Furlow installed flooring and tile throughout the home. He testified to the following regarding his building loans: the original construction loan was $440,000 at 4.95 percent; as of September 2019, he had a $100,000 loan from Progressive Bank at 4.68 percent; he had two $50,000 loans at 5 percent each from family members for 15-year terms; in October 2020, he qualified for a 3.6 percent mortgage to replace the Progressive Bank and family loans, but was unable to get it because of the lien; and in April 2021, he qualified for a loan with 2.35 percent interest. Mr. Seab introduced an amortization schedule of the current loans and hypothetical loans, which included only the interest paid as of April 2021.
Mr. Huddleston testified that he was the general contractor on the Seabs’ house. He stated that he subcontracted with Mr. Furlow for labor only and he provided the materials to Mr. Furlow. Mr. Huddleston identified a payment schedule and cancelled checks written to Mr. Furlow. He stated that he and Mr. Furlow had an agreement for the cost of the labor prior to the work being performed. He testified that Mr. Furlow has worked for him on four projects and Mr. Furlow has never invoiced him for work. He stated that he paid Mr. Furlow for work performed when he made a verbal draw request.
Mr. Huddleston stated that Mr. Furlow's work ended when he laid some tile on the back porch, with which they were unsatisfied. They hired someone else to grout and finish the back porch. He stated that the tiles Mr. Furlow laid on the back porch were tiles that were not in the original contract, but tiles Mr. Furlow bought for a quoted price of $5.50 per foot. Mr. Huddleston stated that he agreed to Mr. Furlow's price on the tile. He testified that he did not believe that the purchase of the tiles was the reason Mr. Furlow was asking for more money because $5.50 times 200 square feet is about $1,000. He stated that Mr. Furlow quit coming to the jobsite. Mr. Huddleston stated,
Mr. Huddleston was asked about any arrests or criminal convictions. He stated, He testified that one of the charges is in connection to the misappropriation of construction funds.
Mr. Furlow testified that the quoted price for the Seab house was "nowhere even close" to what he and Mr. Huddleston had agreed. He stated that he did not have a written contract with Mr. Huddleston on any of the projects; he just filled out an invoice and submitted it to Mr. Huddleston. He testified that he was paid $4,000 on the Seab project and is owed $14,100. Mr. Furlow stated that he was paid in one $2,000 check and $2,000 in cash.
Mr. Furlow testified that the disagreement regarding the blue tile on the back porch was not the amount per foot, but the actual square footage. He stated that Mr. Huddleston told him the back porch was 200 square feet, but it was actually 600 square feet. This discrepancy meant they did not have enough tile. He stated that he only billed for what he stuck down, but did not grout because there was no stone left. Mr. Furlow stated that Mr. Huddleston should have informed the Seabs that he incorrectly measured the porch. He testified that he filed a separate lawsuit against the Seabs and Mr. Huddleston a year after the lien was filed, when the lien was not paid.
The Seabs filed an offering as to quantum on May 7, 2021. They argued they were entitled to attorney fees because Mr. Furlow refused to cancel the lien. They claimed damages for past and future excess interest payments of $6,879.82 and attorney fees of $9,304.50. The Seabs asserted that because of the statement of claim, they were unable to obtain a 15-year, $215,000 mortgage for their home in September 2019 with an interest rate of 3.63 percent. They stated that they were left with the following three loans in September 2019: 15-year, $100,000 loan at 4.38 percent; 15-year, $50,000 private loan at 5 percent; and 15-year, $65,000 private loan at 5 percent. The Seabs presented amortization schedules for these three loans as well as two possible mortgages that they could have obtained if the lien had been cancelled (a 15-year, $200,000 mortgage at 2.5 percent and a 15-year, $200,000 mortgage at 2.3 percent). The Seabs asserted that the difference between the interest they actually paid and could have paid, plus the excess interest they will be required to pay when they refinance after the lien is cancelled, totaled $6,879.82. The Seabs also submitted a billing statement for attorney fees totaling $9,304.50.
The trial court issued its judgment on May 7, 2021, and ordered the January 22, 2021, writ of mandamus be made peremptory at the cost of Mr. Furlow; the Clerk of Court to cancel the lien; and Mr. Furlow cast with all costs, including $6,879.82 in damages and $9,304.50 in attorney fees. In finding in favor of the Seabs, the trial court highlighted the following reasons for his finding, which were outlined by the Seabs: the exclusion of Lot 32; the omission of Ouachita Parish; Eagle Ridge Subdivision is located in Sections 16 and 25; the attached invoice failed to specifically itemize the prices of each component; the lien stated "labor and materials" but did not specify which materials were used; and the amount of the obligation is not accurately set forth in the lien. Mr. Furlow now appeals.
Mr. Furlow argues the trial court erred in making the Plaintiffs’ writ of mandamus peremptory and directing the Clerk of Court to cancel his lien. He asserts that his lien satisfies the requirements of La R.S. 9:4822. He argues technical defects in the notice should not defeat the claim as long as the notice is adequate to serve the purposes intended.
The Seabs contend that Mr. Furlow's lien fails to satisfy the requirements of La. R.S. 9:4822 and the trial court did not err. They assert that statutes creating liens and privileges...
To continue reading
Request your trial