Delano Plantation v. June Lowrey

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 08-1180 DELANO PLANTATION, ET AL. VERSUS JUNE LOWREY, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 90-C-0377-B HONORABLE ELLIS J. DAIGLE, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE ********** Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, J. David Painter, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges. AFFIRMED. Stanford B. Gauthier II Attorney at Law 1405 West Pinhook Rd, Ste 105 Lafayette, La 70503 (337) 234-0099 Counsel for Other Appellant: Alice Ann Lowrey Robinson Douglas C. Longman Jr. Longman Russo, APLC P. O. Drawer 3408 Lafayette, LA 70502-3408 (337) 261-1200 Counsel for Other Appellee: Charles A. Going, CPA G. Frederick Seemann Attorney at Law 401 Audubon, Suite 103A Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 234-3766 Counsel for Defendant Appellee: Brandon Lowrey Lainnie Lowrey Capouya Alice Lowrey Angel Jonathan D. Mayeux Attorney at Law 1405 W. Pinhook Rd, Ste 105 Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 234-0099 Counsel for Other Appellant: Alice Ann Lowrey Robinson Nichole LaBorde Romero Attorney at Law 1405 W. Pinhook Rd, Ste 105 Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 234-0099 Counsel for Other Appellant: Alice Ann Lowrey Robinson Alice Ann Lowrey Robinson In Proper Person 104 Donald Drive Lafayette, LA 70503 (000) 000-0000 Counsel for Other Appellant: Alice Ann Lowrey Robinson Kristi D. Husher Attorney at Law 1405 W. Pinhook Rd., Suite 105 Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 234-0099 Counsel for Other Appellant: Alice Ann Lowrey Robinson 1 GREMILLION, Judge. 2 Before the court is another skirmish in an eighteen-year-long war between the 3 shareholders of Delano Plantation, Inc. In 1990, Anne Robinson and her mother, 4 Clementine Lowrey, now deceased, brought this derivative suit against defendants, 5 Brandon Lowrey, Lainnie Lowrey Capouya, Amy Lowrey Angel, and June Lowrey, 6 whom we will collective refer to as the Lowrey defendants, alleging mismanagement 7 of the corporation throughout the 1980s. In 1996, Charles Going, a certified public 8 accountant, was named temporary receiver. Going was named permanent receiver in 9 1999. That appointment was appealed and this court affirmed his appointment in In 10 re: Delano Plantation, Inc. v. Lowrey, 99-1752 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/7/00) , 770 So.2d 11 798 , writ denied, 00-2564 (La. 11/13/00), 774 So.2d 149 . 12 Going prepared a restatement of the corporation’s assets to revalue the 13 corporation had the mismanagement not occurred. With revisions, the restatement 14 was adopted as a judgment of the trial court. Again, the matter came before this 15 court. In Delano Plantation v. Lowrey, 05-1337 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06) , 926 So.2d 16 728 , we affirmed the trial court’s judgment that added back to the corporation’s assets 17 the following charges: $1,028,332.00 in excess farming expenses; $272,015.00 in 18 excess officers’ salaries; $16,984.00 in legal fees unrelated to the corporation; a 19 $136,848.00 judgment paid to Anne Robinson with interest of $13,146.00; and loans 20 to shareholders totaling $78,603.00 with interest of $88,642.00. Additionally, the 21 value of the corporation was to reflect a “tax effect” of $627,225.00, to be subtracted 22 from the stated assets. Also included in that judgment was an allocation of the 23 percentages of corporate ownership that factored the death of Clementine Lowrey, her 24 bequest of her estate in toto to Anne Robinson, and the effect of forced heirship on [1] 1 the part of the Lowrey defendants at the time of Clementine Lowrey’s death. 2 In March 2007, Robinson filed a petition for writ of mandamus to force Going 3 to prosecute or settle the claims against the Lowrey defendants for the charges 4 encompassed in the judgment, and to force him to collect any outstanding lease 5 payments due the corporation along with late charges. Going filed a rule to show 6 cause against Robinson and the Lowrey defendants to require them to obtain a partial 7 judgment of possession in the succession of Clementine Lowrey, a matter pending in 8 the 15th Judicial District in Lafayette Parish. 9 The hearing on the receiver’s motion and the writ of mandamus was held on 10 May 12, 2008. The trial court denied the motion for writ of mandamus and the 11 motion to require the parties to obtain a partial judgment of possession. The trial court 12 found that the motion to require the partial judgment of possession was res judicata 13 by virtue of having been part of the 2005 judgment that was appealed. In its 14 judgment, the trial court restated the percentage of ownership that had been assessed 15 in the 2005 judgment. 16 Anne Robinson appeals the denial of mandamus and the allocation of the 17 percentages of ownership. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 18 ANALYSIS 19 Assignment of error number one: Robinson asserts as error the trial court’s 20 denial of her petition for writ of mandamus, finding that the judgment was not a 21 money judgment; and the ruling of the trial court regarding the percentages of 22 ownership not including the succession of Clementine Lowrey, as that case was 23 pending in the 15th JDC and was thus outside the judge’s authority. 24 Code of Civil Procedure article 3861provides that mandamus is a writ directing [2] 1 a public officer or a corporation or a corporate officer to perform any of the duties set 2 forth in articles 3863 and 3864. Comment (c) provides that the term “duties” is 3 limited to those set forth in articles 3863 and 3864. Over the years, courts have 4 utilized the terms “ministerial” and “discretionary” in drawing the distinction between 5 functions of the office that can or cannot be subject to mandamus. Mandamus is an 6 extraordinary remedy and should not be granted if the duty sought to be enforced is 7 subject to any discretion whatsoever on the party of the officer owing the duty. State 8 v. Hoag, 04-0857 (La. 12/1/04), 889 So.2d 1019 . 9 Code of Civil Procedure article 3864 provides that a writ of mandamus may be 10 directed to a corporation or an officer thereof to compel the holding of an election or 11 the performance of other duties required by the corporate charter or bylaws or 12 prescribed by law, or for the recognition of the rights of the members or shareholders. 13 In Levy v. Billeaud, 399 So.2d 775 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1981), this court was asked to 14 reverse the trial court’s dismissal of a suit for mandamus against a corporate 15 liquidator to compel him to distribute the assets of the corporation to the 16 shareholders. Because the law provided remedies by ordinary means, and it did not 17 appear that resort to ordinary means would result in delay causing injustice, we 18 affirmed. The court noted that mandamus had been granted to: uphold a 19 shareholder’s right to examine the books and records of the corporation, require the 20 corporation to issue stock for which a shareholder had paid, uphold a shareholder’s 21 right to statutorily require financial information, and receive a copy of the 22 corporation’s annual report. It distinguished the current case on the basis that the 23 rights on which the case was founded were not clear and specifically fixed, but were 24 greatly questioned and, viewed in a light most favorable to petitioners, in serious and [3] 1 bona fide dispute. 2 Receivership is governed by the Title 12 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. 3 Louisiana Revised Statute 12:152 provides that a receiver shall have all the powers 4 granted a judicial liquidator in La.R.S. 12:146(C). That section provides that a 5 liquidator “shall have full authority to retain counsel and auditors, and to prosecute 6 and defend actions; shall have authority to compromise, compound and settle claims 7 by or against the corporation upon such terms as he deems best, subject to supervision 8 by the court; and shall have such other powers as the court may in its discretion grant, 9 which, without limiting the scope of the court's discretion, may include any or all 10 powers enumerated in La.R.S. 12:145(C).” This grants the discretion to perform 11 these duties. Had the legislature intended to mandate the liquidator perform these 12 various functions, it could have done so without stating that he had “the authority” 13 to perform them. 14 The petition filed by Robinson sought to require Going to prosecute or settle 15 the claims against the Lowrey defendants, or in failing that, to have Going replaced. 16 The decision to pursue litigation—and certainly to settle litigation—is necessarily 17 discretionary. A number of factors must be considered, such as weighing the cost 18 against the intended benefit, and ones chances of success. This necessary discretion 19 is reason sufficient to deny mandamus. 20 In this particular case, Robinson also sought to force Going to collect past-due 21 rents and late fees. Again, collection is like any other legal proceeding, and 22 discretion must be accorded in terms of working out arrangements with tenants who 23 are behind to have those past-due amounts paid, compromising those claims, and 24 waiving late fees. Mandamus is not an appropriate vehicle for this, either. [4] 1 That this judgment constitutes a money judgment does not affect our analysis. 2 As stated previously, collection of a money judgment still requires the exercise of 3 discretion on the part of the receiver. 4 Assignment of error number two: The second assignment of error stems 5 from the trial court recognizing in its May 23, 2008 judgment the percentages of 6 ownership that had been allocated in its February 1, 2005 judgment. Going contended 7 that Clementine Robinson held a 16.9% interest in the corporation on her death, and 8 sought to force Robinson and the Lowrey defendants to obtain a partial judgment of 9 possession in Clementine Lowrey’s succession. However, the Lowrey defendants 10 convinced the trial court that the February 1, 2005 judgment apportioned the 11 ownership interests in accordance with Going’s restatement. Going’s restatement 12 factored in the percentages of Clementine’s estate and how that would be divided. 13 Thus, that judgment effectively rendered any decree from the succession proceedings 14 moot. The trial court agreed with that position and denied the rule to force action in 15 the succession proceedings. 16 Robinson contends that this improperly invaded the province of the court 17 presiding over the succession proceedings. We are faced with the issue of whether, 18 by reiterating in the May 2008 judgment the ownership percentages contained in the 19 February 2005 judgment, the trial court reopened this issue for appeal. That portion 20 of the February 2005 judgment was not appealed. If the appeal is not reopened by 21 this reiteration, it is final and should not be heard now. 22 In Smith v. White, 411 So.2d 731 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1982), writ denied, 413 So.2d 23 508 (1982), the plaintiff sued on a promissory note. The defendant reconvened to 24 seek cancellation of a gravel lease and damages to his property. The trial court ruled [5] 1 in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $6,234.00 plus attorneys fees, and also found for 2 the defendant and ordered the gravel lease canceled, but awarded nothing for 3 damages to his land. On appeal, Smith v. White, 398 So.2d 178 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4 1981), the matter was remanded for full consideration of the reconventional demand. 5 On remand, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, again for 6 $6,234.00, and in favor of defendant for $17,500.00. Both sides appealed. We held 7 that it was harmless error for the court to have reiterated the original amount awarded 8 to the plaintiff, as that judgment was already final. 9 The present case is identical. The judgment allocating the percentages of 10 ownership was rendered and signed in 2005. That allocation of ownership was not 11 appealed. It became a final judgment. This assignment of error, then, is without 12 merit. 13 CONCLUSION 14 A receiver is vested with great discretion in governing the corporation’s affairs. 15 Two areas in which this discretion is granted is over pursuing and/or compromising 16 litigation. The fact that these matter are discretionary renders a writ of mandamus an 17 inappropriate remedy. 18 The matter of the percentages of ownership of the corporation had already been 19 litigated and reduced to judgment in 2005. That portion of the 2005 judgment was 20 not appealed. The trial court’s reiteration of these percentages in the 2008 judgment 21 did not revive this issue for appeal. 22 Costs of the appeal are taxed to plaintiff. 23 AFFIRMED.