TEE IT UP GOLF, INC. v. BAYOU STATE CONST.
Decision Date | 10 February 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 09-855.,09-855. |
Citation | 30 So.3d 1159 |
Parties | TEE IT UP GOLF, INC., et al. v. BAYOU STATE CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Mark F. Vilar, Aaron L. Green, Vilar & Elliott, LLC, Alexandria, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellees: Tee It Up Golf, LLC and John Nobles.
Mark A. Watson, Stafford, Stewart & Potter, Alexandria, LA, for Defendant-Appellant: Bayou State Construction, Inc.
Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, MARC T. AMY, and ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, Judges.
Bayou State Construction, Inc., was hired by John Nobles and/or Tee it Up Golf, LLC, to serve as the general contractor for the construction of a strip mall in Pineville and to perform work on Nobles' private home in Pineville, Louisiana. Nobles and Bayou State agreed to a "cost plus 10%" contract for the jobs. Work began in January 2008, and was billed to Nobles in eight invoices totaling slightly in excess of 1.5 million dollars.
A dispute arose between Nobles and Bayou State concerning the projects. There were attempts by the parties to resolve the matter, however, they were unsuccessful. Eventually, Bayou State filed materialman's liens on both properties with the Clerk of Court in Rapides Parish. Nobles asserted the liens were improper, and demanded in writing that Bayou State request the Recorder of Mortgages cancel the liens. Bayou State did not act upon that request within the ten days provided by law, and, as a result, Nobles brought a Writ of Mandamus to have the materialman's liens cancelled.
The hearing on the Petition for Writ of Mandamus took place on May 4, 2009. Nobles contended there were numerous deficiencies with the liens, including an insufficient property description and a failure to reasonably itemize the elements comprising the amounts and obligations asserted. Following the taking of evidence, the trial court granted the parties leave to file memorandums concerning whether the liens met the procedural requirements of the Private Works Act. Ultimately, the trial court ruled in favor of Nobles, finding the liens did not satisfy the requirements of the Private Works Act and ordering cancellation of the liens. Nobles was also awarded $3,000.00 in attorney fees pursuant to La. R.S. 9:4833(B) for Bayou State's failure to have the liens cancelled within ten days as provided in that section. The trial court did not make an award for damages incurred by Nobles due to his inability to cancel the liens because there was no proof with regard to damages due to Bayou State's refusal to cancel the liens.
Bayou State appeals that judgment, contending it met the burden required under the Private Works Act. Nobles answered the appeal, requesting we remand to the trial court solely for presentation of proof as to the damages incurred due to Bayou State's refusal to cancel the liens. Nobles also requests an additional award of attorney fees for the work necessitated by Bayou State's appeal. Lastly, he contends Bayou State's appeal is frivolous, further entitling him to an award of damages.
Initially, we note it was stipulated at the hearing on this matter that Bayou State was the General Contractor for the project at issue and that a reasonable estimate of the work clearly exceeded $25,000.00. Louisiana Revised Statute 9:4811(D) specifically provides "a general contractor shall not enjoy the privilege granted by R.S. 9:4801 if the price of the work stipulated or reasonably estimated in his contract exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars unless notice of contract is timely filed." Bayou State conceded notice of contract was not timely filed; thus, as a general contractor cannot advance a claim under the Private Works Act. However, Bayou State argues it is allowed, under Burdette v. Drushell, 01-2494 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/02), 837 So.2d 54, writ denied, 03-682 (La.5/16/03), 843 So.2d 1132, to assert a laborer's lien under La. R.S. 9:4801(2) or a lien as a non-general or ordinary contractor under La. R.S. 9:4801(1). We do not disagree. Bayou State was not barred from filing a labor lien because its employees performed work on the projects. However, as Nobles notes, there is a "difference between being able to file a `Labor Lien' and having properly perfected such a lien." We find the record supports the trial court's conclusion that Bayou State failed to properly perfect its liens in this case.
In order to perfect a labor lien under the Private Works Act, La. R.S. 9:4822(G) sets forth the required elements:
The trial court held the above article should be read in pari materia with La. R.S. 9:4831(C), which provides as follows:
C. Each filing made with the recorder of mortgages pursuant to this Part which contains a reference to immovable property shall contain a description of the property sufficient to clearly and permanently identify the property. A description which includes the lot and/or square and/or subdivision or township and range shall meet the requirements of this Subsection. Naming the street or mailing address without more shall not be sufficient to meet the requirements of this Subsection.
The trial court found the Statement of Claim filed by Bayou State did not "reasonably identify the immovable with respect to which the work was performed or movables or services were supplied or rendered and the owner thereof." We agree. The only reference to an immovable in the Statement of Claim is the municipal address where the "materials were delivered." No other information is provided. The courts have held that under La. R.S. 9:4831(C) "a municipal address is insufficient to perfect a privilege." Norman H. Voelkel Construction, Inc. v. Recorder of Mortgages for East Baton Rouge Parish, 02-1153, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/27/03), 859 So.2d 9, 11, writ denied, 03-1962 (La.10/31/03), 857 So.2d 486; see also Boes Iron-Works v. Spartan Building Corp., 94-519 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/15/94), 648 So.2d 24, 25, writ denied, 95-103 (La.3/10/95), 650 So.2d 1184 ( ). Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding the listing of only the municipal address on the Statement of Claim was insufficient; and, under La. R.S. 9:4833, Nobles was entitled to have the privilege cancelled.
We also find the trial court did not err in finding Nobles failed to properly set forth the amount and nature of the obligation giving rise to the claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mid-South Plumbing, L.L.C. v. Dev. Consortium-Shelly Arms, L.L.C.
... ... Lions Gate Films, Inc. v. Jonesfilm, 12–1452, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/27/13) 113 ... , a petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the ... State Through Div. of Admin. v. McInnis Bros. Const., 97–0742, p. 9 (La.10/21/97), 701 So.2d 937, 944. By the ... 4 Cir. 12/14/11), 82 So.3d 1242;Tee It Up Golf, Inc. v. Bayou State Constr., L.L.C., 09–855, pp. 3–5 ... ...
-
Simms Hardin Co. v. 3901 Ridgelake Drive, L.L.C.
...explanation, do not meet the statutory requirements of La. R.S. 9:4822(G). Ridgelake cites Tee It Up Golf, Inc. v. Bayou State Construction, 09–855 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/10/10), 30 So.3d 1159, in support of its position. There, the contractor, Bayou State, was hired by John Nobles and/or Tee it......
-
Seab v. Furlow
...sum statement of the amount owed and did not itemize the elements comprising the lien. In Tee It Up Golf, Inc. v. Bayou State Const., L.L.C. , 2009-855 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/10/10), 30 So. 3d 1159, the court found that the lien included only a lump sum under the category "Materials Supplied" a......
-
Murillo v. Coryell Cnty. Tradesmen, LLC
...at 2. 90. Rec. Doc. 241 at 3. 91. Id. 92. 498 So. 2d 132, 134 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1986). 93. Id. 94. 2009-855 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/10/10); 30 So. 3d 1159, 1162. 95. Id. 96. 2016-969 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/5/17); 215 So. 3d 979, 981-82. See also Bradley Electrical Services., Inc. v. 2601, L.L.C., 201......
-
Secured Interests in Louisiana Crops: The 2010 Legislative Revision
...who actually pick cotton rather than the partnership employing them. But see Tee It Up Golf, Inc. v. Bayou State Construction, LLC , 30 So. 3d 1159 (La. Ct. App. 3d 2010), which, without citing either Pringle or Bat Farms , allowed a corporate general contractor in a Private Works Act case ......