N.E.N.H., L.L.C. VERSUS BROUSSARD-BAEHR HOLDINGS, L.L.C. AND ANN R. BAEHR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
N.E.N.H., L.L.C. NO. 13-CA-893 VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT BROUSSARD-BAEHR HOLDINGS, L.L.C. AND ANN R. BAEHR COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 712-986, DIVISION "H" HONORABLE GLENN B. ANSARDI, JUDGE PRESIDING May 14,2014 COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH CTRCUTT FILED MAY 1 4 2014 MARC E. JOHNSON JUDGE .J Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson CHARLES R. GERAGE ATTORNEY AT LAW 3621 Ridgelake Drive Suite 207 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE GINGER K. DEFOREST ATTORNEY AT LAW 70326 Highway 59 Abita Springs, Louisiana 70420 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT AFFIRMED .. ut ~ Defendant!Appellant, Ann R. Baehr, appeals the granting of summary ~~ judgment in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, N.E.N.H., L.L.C. ("N.E.N.H."), regarding ~ the personal liability of a mortgage and note for an LLC from the 24th Judicial District Court, Division "H". For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 14,2010, Broussard-Baehr Holdings, L.L.C. ("BroussardBaehr Holdings") entered into a mortgage with N.E.N.H. for $150,000.00 on property located at 3231 N. 1-10 Service Road in Metairie, Louisiana. Troy G. Broussard and Ms. Baehr signed the mortgage on behalf of Broussard-Baehr Holdings as managing members. On the same date, Mr. Broussard and Ms. Baehr signed a note for $150,000.00 in favor ofN.E.N.H. The $150,000.00 was to be paid in 36 consecutive monthly installments of$I,521.40 each, commencing on September 3,2010, with one final installment being due and payable on August 3, 2013. In the note, the signatures blocks were styled as follows: BROUSSARD-BAEHR HOLDINGS, L.L.C. BY: x Troy G. Broussard TROY G. BROUSSARD, Managing Member and as Personal [G]uarantor -2 x Anne R. Baehr ANNE R. BAEHR, Member and as Personal Guarantor The note stated that the parties "jointly, severally and in solido" promised to pay $150,000.00 and provided that the makers of the note bound themselves unconditionally as original promisors for the payment. On March 27, 2012, N.E.N.H. filed a "Suit on Note and for Recognition of Mortgage," alleging that Broussard-Baehr Holdings, Ms. Baehr and Mr. Broussard were jointly, severally and solidarily liable for failing to make payments due as of November 3,2011, as required under the note. In response, the defendants to the action filed an exception of lack of amicable demand. Ms. Baehr and Mr. Broussard also filed an exception of no cause of action. A hearing on the exceptions was held on August 27,2012, wherein the trial court overruled the exception of lack of amicable demand as to Broussard-Baehr Holdings. The remaining matters involving Ms. Baehr and Mr. Broussard were taken under advisement. In a judgment rendered on October 29,2012, the remaining exceptions were overruled. Subsequent to the rulings on the exceptions, N.E.N.H. filed a "Motion for Default" and "Motion for Confirmation of Default Judgment," alleging the defendants failed to answer the suit. Prior to the confirmation of the default judgment, the defendants filed an "Answer and Affirmative Defenses" on December 20,2012. On March 28,2013, Ms. Baehr and Mr. Broussard filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment," asserting there were no genuine issues of material fact that they only signed the note in their representative capacities as members of Broussard-Baehr Holdings. N.E.N.H. also filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" on April 5,2013, alleging the defendants executed a promissory note, -3 defaulted on their obligations, and were liable for the debt of the promissory note. The motions were heard on April 30, 2013. 1 In a judgment rendered on May 8, 2013, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants and granted the motion for summary judgment filed by N.E.N.H. In the summary judgment in favor ofN.E.N.H., the trial court found Broussard-Baehr Holdings and Ms. Baehr to be liable jointly, severally and in solido for the principal amount of $144, 171.54, plus accrued interest from November 3, 2011 at the rate of9% percent per annum until paid in full. The trial court also awarded late charges, bank fees, reasonable attorney's fees, and court costs in favor ofN.E.N.H. and against Broussard-Baehr Holdings and Ms. Baehr. Additionally, the trial court reserved all litigious rights against Mr. Broussard. Ms. Baehr timely appeals the judgment. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR On appeal, Ms. Baehr raises the following assignments of error: 1) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because N.E.N.H. failed to prove that she was not shielded from personal liability by the laws governing limited liability companies; and 2) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the "eight comers" of the mortgage and promissory note do not show that Ms. Baehr assumed individual liability. We will jointly address the assignments of error. LAW AND ANALYSIS Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo, using the same criteria that governed the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, asking whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Favre v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., L.L.c., 11-451 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/13/12); 90 So.3d 481, 485, writ 1 At the hearing, Mr. Broussard revealed that he had filed for bankruptcy. Thus, the proceeding against him personally was stayed. -4 denied, 12-1024 (La. 6/22/12); 91 So.3d 976. The summary judgment procedure is favored and is designed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action, except those disallowed by law. Id., citing DR OR Intern. L.P. v. Thundervision, L.L.c., 11-215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/13/11); 81 So.3d 182, writ not considered, 12-0127 (La. 3/23/12); 84 So.3d 560. "The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admission, together with the affidavits, if any, admitted for purposes of the motion for summary judgment, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2). A fact is material if it potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant's ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute. A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree; if reasonable person could reach only one conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate. Favre, 90 So.3d at 485. In this matter, Ms. Baehr alleges the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor ofN.E.N.H. because N.E.N.H. did not prove that she could be held personally liable for signing the mortgage and note on behalf of Broussard Baehr Holdings. Ms. Baehr argues that, under Louisiana law pertaining to LLCs, she was entitled to a shield of protection from liability by being a member of Broussard-Baehr Holdings. Thus, Ms. Baehr contends the veil could not be pierced to hold her personally liable. Additionally, to the extent the words "personal guarantor" appear to obligate her individually, Ms. Baehr argues that those words entirely contradict the mortgage in numerous places, which repeatedly states the mortgage and accompanying note are solely obligations of Broussard Baehr Holdings. Ms. Baehr avers that the word "personal" by her signature as -5 "Member" on one occasion should not change the entire nature of the mortgage, the note, and the law protecting her from personal liability. Conversely, N.E.N.H. argues the trial court properly granted the summary judgment in its favor because it demonstrated all of the essential elements necessarily entitling it to a summary judgment, and Ms. Baehr failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue as to material fact existed. N.E.N.H. contends the note is neither ambiguous nor unclear as to the capacity in which Ms. Baehr was affixing her signature. N.E.N.H. argues that the words "Personal Guarantor" underneath the signatures of Mr. Broussard and Ms. Baehr on the note signify an indorsement. N.E.N.H. argues that the indorsement made it clear that the individual parties were incurring personal liability as obligors on the note, along with Broussard-Baehr Holdings. We agree with N.E.N.H.'s position. A contract of guaranty is equivalent to a contract of suretyship, and the two terms may be used interchangeably. Veterans Commercial Properties, LLC v. Barry's Flooring, Inc., 11-6 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/24/11); 67 So.3d 627, 629. A suretyship is an accessory promise by which one binds himself for another already bound and agrees with the creditor to satisfy the obligation if the principal debtor does not do so. Id. An agreement of suretyship must be express and in writing and must be explicit. Id. Contracts of guaranty are subject to the same rules of interpretation as contracts in general. Id. Contracts are interpreted according to the true intent of the parties. La. C.C. art. 2045; First Bank and Trust v. Redman Gaming ofLouisiana, Inc., 13-369 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/12/13); 131 So.3d 224,228. When the words of the contract are clear, unambiguous, and lead to no absurd consequence, no further interpretation may be made or consideration of extrinsic evidence be had in search of the parties' intent and the contract must be enforced as written. La. C.C. art. 2046; First Bank -6 and Trust, supra. When a contract can be construed from the four comers of the instrument, interpretation of the contract presents a question of law that can be decided on summary judgment. Id. In the case at bar, Ms. Baehr signed the promissory note as a member on behalf of Broussard-Baehr Holdings and as a personal guarantor. Ms. Baehr's personal guaranty is in writing and is expressed. The language of the note is clear and unambiguous that Ms. Baehr, Mr. Broussard and Broussard-Baehr Holdings jointly, severally and solidarily promised to pay N.E.N.H. $150,000.00 under the note. It is also clear and unambiguous that those parties bound themselves in solido as original promisors for the payment of the principal, interests, costs and attorney's fees. The language of the promissory note and the guaranty within it lead to no absurd consequences. As a result, no further interpretation needs to be performed by this Court. Furthermore, we reject Ms. Baehr's argument that she is protected from all personal liability for the note under the limited liability company laws because she is a member of Broussard-Baehr Holdings. As mentioned above, Ms. Baehr signed as a member of Broussard-Baehr Holdings and as a personal guarantor. While it is true that Ms. Baehr is afforded specific protections as a member of Broussard Baehr Holdings, those protections as a member do not extend to her signature in the capacity as a personal guarantor to the promissory note. DECREE For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the summary judgment in favor of N.E.N.H., L.L.C. Ms. Baehr is assessed the costs of this appeal. AFFIRMED -7 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHERYL Q. LANDRIEU CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT MARY E. LEGNON FREDERICKA H. WICKER JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON ROBERT M. MURPHY STEPHEN J. WINDHORST HANS J. UUEBERG JUDGES CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK SUSAN BUCHHOLZ FIRST DEPUTY CLERK FIFTH CIRCUIT MEUSSA C. LEDET 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400 (504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELNERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Uniform Rules - Court of Appeal, Rule 2-20 THIS DAY MAY 14. 2014 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW: r~ \) C~ I . CLERK OF COURT 13-CA-893 E-NOTIFIED NO ATTORNEYS WERE ENOTIFIED MAILED CHARLES R. GERAGE ATTORNEY AT LAW 3621 RIDGELAKE DRIVE SUITE 207 METAIRIE, LA 70002 GINGER K. DEFOREST ATTORNEY AT LAW 70326 HIGHWAY 59 ABITA SPRINGS, LA 70420 ANNR.BAEHR ATTORNEY AT LAW 3904 WHEAT DRIVE METAIRIE, LA 70002 BROUSSARD-BAEHR HOLDINGS C/O ANN G. BEAHR 4004 RIVAGE COURT 3908 WHEAT AVENUE METAIRIE, LA 70002
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
