Kano Investments, LLC v. Kojis Construction, LLC

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT P.O. Box 16577 Lake Charles LA 70616 (337) 433-9403

REHEARING ACTION: April 24, 2013

Docket Number: 12-01007 CW and 12-1269 CA

KANO INVESTMENTS, LLC VERSUS KOJIS CONSTRUCTION, LLC

Writ Application from Avoyelles Parish Case No. 2012-7687

BEFORE JUDGES:

Hon. Elizabeth A. Pickett Hon. J. David Painter Hon. Phyllis M. Keaty

As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the application

for rehearing filed by Kojis Construction, LLC has this day been

GRANTED. (Opinion on rehearing attached.)

As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the application

for rehearing filed by Kano Investments, LLC has this day been

DENIED.

cc: Jerold Edward Knoll, Jr. Brian K. Thompson Hon. Charles A. Riddle, III STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CW12-1007 consolidated with 12-1269

KANO INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.

VERSUS

KOJIS CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C.

************

APPEAL FROM THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2012-7687-B HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BENNETT, JUDGE

ON REHEARING

J. DAVID PAINTER JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, J. David Painter, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Jerold Edward Knoll P.O. Box 426 Marksville, LA 71351 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT-APPELLEE: Kano Investments, L.L.C.

Brian K. Thompson 2915 Jackson St. Alexandria, LA 71301 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT-APPELLEE: Kano Investments, L.L.C.

Charles A. Riddle P.O. Box 608 Marksville, LA 71351 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: Kojis Construction, L.L.C. PAINTER, Judge.

We grant the application of Defendant-Appellant, Kojis Construction, L.L.C.

solely as to the issue of estoppel. After reviewing the facts and the applicable law,

we find that payment of rent for three months did not act to estop the breach of

lease claim. The lease contract provides that the landlord’s failure to exercise its

rights under the lease promptly does not operate to forfeit such rights. Further,

[E]quitable estoppel applies only where a party has made false or misleading representations of fact and the other party justifiably relied on the representation. State v. Mitchell, 337 So.2d 1186, 1188 (La.1976). We must narrowly construe this argument, as “estoppel is not favored in our law,” Id., and estoppel is a “doctrine of last resort.” Howard Trucking Co., Inc. v. Stassi, 485 So.2d 915, 918 (La.1986).

Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC v. Penn-America Ins. Co., 12-1033, p. _

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/6/13), ___ So.3d ___, ___. The documents supporting the

motions for summary judgment do not support application of this doctrine.

Therefore, we affirm our original opinion and affirm the trial court’s grant of

summary judgment with regard to breach of lease.