Donnie Chesne v. Cappaert Manufactured Housing, Inc.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 27, 2013
• Docket: CA-0012-1122
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1122

DONNIE CHESNE, ET AL.

VERSUS

CAPPAERT MANUFACTURED HOUSING, INC.

********** APPEAL FROM THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF AVOYELLES, DOCKET NO. 2011-7473-A HONORABLE MARK A. JEANSONNE, DISTRICT JUDGE **********

SYLVIA R. COOKS JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders, and Jimmie C. Peters, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Fred A. Pharis Pharis Law Offices 831 DeSoto Street Alexandria, LA 71301 (318) 445-8266 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES Donnie Chesne, et al.

Jerold Edward Knoll The Knoll Law Firm, LLC P.O. Box 426 Marksville, LA 71351 (318) 253-6200 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES Donnie Chesne, et al. Albert Dale Clary Adrian G. Nadeau Mark L. Barbre Long Law Firm 4041 Essen Lane, Suite 500 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 (225) 922-5110 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTA Cappaert Manufactured Housing, Inc. COOKS, Judge.

Defendant appeals the district court’s judgment granting the Plaintiffs’

Exception of No Cause of Action and dismissing Defendant’s Motion to Vacate or

Modify a previously rendered arbitration award that was confirmed by the district

court. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The genesis of this appeal began with the filing of a Petition for Damages by

numerous plaintiffs living in nine different mobile homes manufactured by

defendant, Cappaert Manufactured Housing, Inc. The plaintiffs asserted claims in

both redhibition and personal injury resulting from alleged defective conditions in

the mobile homes.

Seven of the plaintiffs in question were referred to binding arbitration. This

was compelled by Cappaert on the grounds that the plaintiffs for these homes

signed binding arbitration agreements at the time of purchase. From November

15, 2011 through November 18, 2011, arbitration proceedings were held

concerning plaintiffs’ redhibition and personal injury claims. On December 13,

2011, a Judgment of the Arbitrator was rendered, granting judgment against

Cappaert in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then commenced a proceeding in

the district court seeking to confirm the Judgment of the Arbitrator. On January

23, 2012, the district judge signed a judgment confirming the Judgment of the

Arbitrator.

On March 15, 2012, Cappaert filed a Motion to Vacate or Modify the

Arbitration Award. Plaintiffs filed an Exception of No Cause of Action, seeking to

dismiss Cappaert’s motion. On May 21, 2012, the Exception of No Cause of

Action was granted by the trial court. Cappaert appealed the trial court’s judgment. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a

Motion to Dismiss Cappaert’s appeal, arguing Cappaert’s appeal represents “an

egregious attempt to circumvent the laws of appellate procedure as they relate to

the delays for filing appeals.” The Motion to Dismiss was referred to the merits.

ANALYSIS

Initially, we note despite the motion to dismiss Cappaert’s appeal as

untimely, we elect to address the merits of the appealed judgment and, for the

following reasons, we affirm.

On December 13, 2011, the Judgment of the Arbitrator was rendered. On

January 23, 2012, the district judge signed a judgment confirming the Judgment of

the Arbitrator, and all parties were mailed a copy of the judgment on that date. No

motion for new trial was filed nor was any motion for suspensive appeal taken by

any party. Plaintiffs also note a letter was sent by counsel for Cappaert, dated

January 23, 2012, in which it waived appearance at the motion to confirm and

noted the judgment to confirm was “consistent with the judgment of the arbitrator.”

It was not until May 15, 2012, after the suspensive appeal delays expired, that

Cappaert filed a Motion to Vacate or Modify the Arbitration Award. Plaintiffs

argued since Cappaert chose not to oppose the motion for confirmation, it no

longer had a cause of action to seek to vacate the award.

Louisiana law provides that a confirmation motion must be opposed.

Louisiana Revised Statute 9:4209 provides:

At any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court in and for the parish within which the award was made for an order confirming the award and thereupon the court shall grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in R.S. 9:4210 and 9:4211. Notice in writing of the application shall be served upon the adverse party or his attorney five days before the hearing thereof.

2 As Plaintiffs noted, La.R.S. 9:4209, by its wording, contemplates a consideration

of whether the award should be vacated, modified, or corrected at the time of the

confirmation hearing.

Cappaert argues, as it did below, that La.R.S. 9;4213 allows for a motion to

vacate, modify, or correct anytime within three months from the arbitration award

even if there has been a previous confirmation hearing. That statute provides:

Notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award shall be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered, as prescribed by law for service of a motion in an action. For the purposes of the motion any judge, who might issue an order to stay the proceedings in an action brought in the same court may issue an order, to be served with the notice of motion, staying the proceedings of the adverse party to enforce the award.

We note the above statute also provides a method to stay the proceedings to

confirm the award. Thus, Cappaert could have sought to stay the confirmation

proceedings, but instead chose to waive its appearance and to actually acquiesce in

the confirmation of the arbitration award. Cappaert now argues it should have a

second opportunity to challenge the arbitration award. We disagree.

Cappaert’s belated decision to challenge the arbitration award does not revive

its right to contest the original arbitration award after a final judgment has been

rendered by a court of law having jurisdiction over the matter. The result reached

by the trial court is in accord with the well settled principles of statutory

construction. Louisiana Civil Code Article 13 provides that “[l]aws on the same

subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each other.” The jurisprudence

has specifically stated an interpretation “which affords a reasonable and practical

effect to the entire act is preferred to one that renders part of the act nugatory.”

3 See Ransome v. Ransome, 01-2361, p. 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d 746,

754. In this case, Cappaert’s attempt to wipe out Plaintiffs’ legally obtained

confirmation award is unreasonable, particularly in light of its acquiescence in the

confirmation award rather than seeking a stay as provided for in La.R.S. 9:4213.

Plaintiffs should be able to rely on the finality of a judicial confirmation of an

arbitration award The trial court did not err in granting Plaintiffs’ no cause of

action exception.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court granting Plaintiffs’

Exception of No Cause of Action is affirmed. The motion to dismiss Cappaert’s

appeal is moot. The judgment below is final. All costs of this appeal are assessed

to Defendant-Appellee, Cappaert Manufactured Housing, Inc.