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.