Professional Massage Therapy, Inc. D/B/A/ The Retreat VS Mission Street, L.L.C. and Superior Health & Fitness, L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 0341 PROFESSIONAL MASSAGE THERAPY INC B D A THE RETREAT VS MISSION STREET L L C AND SUPERIOR HEALTH AND FITNESS L L C JUDGMENT RENDERED NOV 7 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER 80 973 DIVISION B PARISH OF ASCENSION STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE THOMAS KLIEBERT JR JUDGE ROBERT RYLAND PERCY III ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE G DALLON BUSH II PROFESSIONAL MASSAGE THERAPY GONZALES LA DONALD R RICHARD JR ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT EUNICE LA SUPERIOR HEALTH AND FITNESS LL C STEVEN A DEBOSIER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE BATON ROUGE LA MISSION STREET LL C BEFORE GAIDRY MCDONALD AND MCCLENDON n MCDONALD J Lessor Court appeals a judgment from to awarding damages property attempted summer subsequently known Shortly thereafter Superior Professional it build was signed a a Superior Health President Schexnaydre Retreat The Retreat to lease space in half years the lease agreement at was began finish by placing obtained a Retreat 1 credit of was to massage services for to 1 000 00 provide 1 four gift Superior members Superior members a Retreat 2002 Additionally or contract a 1 550 00 per month however Retreat month for 30 minute massages on sum of the health club cost to Superior effective February lease agreement with a which began and Fitness property owned by Ms Schexnaydre 550 00 per month with discount Julie Superior 70 000 00 immovable period of7 and pay of as decided that Retreat would incur the for the build out for on For the of the lease the space Retreat wanted to lease Retreat entered into out mortgage d b Inc Massage Therapy negotiating with representatives Eventually tenn of 2001 construction of a health and fitness club in Gonzales Louisiana L L C of the leased purchaser the judgment of the trial court is affirmed following reasons In the the during District Twenty third Judicial its lessee after the evict lessee to the for was a to part of as certificates every as well as The lease a 5 00 was not recorded in the public records In December 2004 L L C January to Mission Street and March 2005 In March 2005 was increasing testimony the 1 000 mortgage incurred by Ms Schexnaydre According to paid and Mission Street accepted informed Retreat that it 1 sold the property Retreat Mission Street February Superior the rent rent in Mission Street At that time Retreat 00 credit per month was to be used to pay the until such time as the mortgage was paid off 2 advised Mission Street of the property and the for April May were terms 2 Rent checks in the amount of of the lease and June negotiated not 70 000 00 investment that it had made in the tendered were On June 10 2005 Retreat received against Mission preliminary injunction to a directed with Retreat interfering right s the lease unenforceable property amounts Street Retreat invested in a status When the requested matter Superior Superior counsel was issued a was was attempt was 2 and a against Mission Street and setting not called for trial improving the subject on continuance The matter were also introduced reach representatives denied and the trial A of proceeded were off dates for amended the matter for trial June 15 and advised that he had been unable 2006 on to contact June 15 counsel of on behalf his client and had been discussed in chambers with present For the record objections to cut parties present However counsel did appear both Retreat and Mission Street and Exhibits it from prohibiting conference where counsel for all bench trial order a record for of for prayed for judgment against finishing pleadings discovery and motions and setting 2006 Superior praying subject premises and Retreat eviction notice 3 Following present Mission Street an they In the alternative in the event the court found the lease against Mission Superior for the Street and occupy the to declaratory judgment in favor of enforcing Mission Street however to Thereafter Retreat filed suit 550 00 to the continuance reasons recess was Superior were made by given for the objections called to allow counsel to Thereafter the continuance At the close of testimony the matter parties subsequently agreed that rent of 550 00 would be accepted by Mission Street without prejudice to its legal position that the lease was not binding on it 3 A supplemental and amending petition was later filed by Retreat alleging Superior was obligated to it for additional damages and loss to be proved at trial The 3 was taken under advisement with the trial court allowing counsel to submit post trial memoranda On June 23 2006 the trial and rendered the vacate court filed written reasons into the record judgment denying injunctive relief and ordering signing of the judgment unless an thirty days of the Street within premises owned by Mission was agreement Retreat to reached for occupancy ordering judgment in favor of Mission Street and against Professional Massage Therapy Inc in Fitness L L C mortgage on in the the amount of Professional 21 42 987 to in favor against Superior Health the on 21 675 00 for the difference between the s lease space for new thirty four months for reimbursement for the amount due to Mission Street for its revenue reimbursement for the the judgment in Mission Street was not pendency attorney fees awarded together with all denying the during Superior has appealed 1 and ordering judgment Superior and the monthly lease payment for Massage Therapy lost additional court Inc together with 42 987 34 000 00 for the balance owed improvements monthly lease payment later date a Massage Therapy 21 of amount to be set at reasonable attorney fees of Professional the costs of the the of the to Mission Street as and stated in proceedings judgment alleging two the motion for continuance and bound proceedings errors 2 in by the trial finding that by the lease A continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and may be 1601 335 granted in any Ballardv or Waitz if there is 06 0307 writ denied 07 0846 338 court must grant case consider the deny a continuance La La particular Id good ground therefore App 1st Cir a case Absent 4 12 28 06 958 So 2d 1193 6 15 07 facts of La C C P Art a when 951 So 2d The trial deciding whether to clear abuse of discretion in granting denying or disturbed on continuance the a ld appeal record the reasons for counsel the evidence submitted find that it was acting court did not should specify not be the on considering the objections of regarding the abuse of the trial an court continuance and the presence of competent counsel not of the trial the trial Although denying the ruling facts on surrounding behalf of court Superior discretion s the issue to we do deny the continuance Superior further Mission Street had wrong in t he evidence of a lease knowledge tenns of the lease and clearly argues that accepted benefits accepted lease payments under the of the lease that Mission Street holding that clearly preponderates We agree with the above factual assertions was and the trial not bound court was by the lease However these facts do not support the legal conclusion urged by Superior We have carefully reviewed the law and record in this applicable La App law and considered the 1 st jurisprudence 1978 Cir on Superior and Retreat Moreover had no the trial knowledge not not it is jury clearly s binding on case well reasons other as and legal the lease between Mission Street A court of fmding that Mission Street the terms of the lease before appeal may not set aside in the absence of manifest Stobart 617 So 2d 880 882 not finding a as accept the lease in its dealings with Superior Development support Orkin 360 So 2d 225 by Superior made the factual finding of fact wrong v Under the facts of this court distinguished from Stanley s or a Stanley of the lease agreement i e the sale and it did court of We agree with the well written court was case relied upon the issue conclusion of the trial We note the trial court reviewed the matter that the trial State v La 1993 court 5 was Dept error or a as trial unless of Transportation and Our review of the record does manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong by and this factual finding precludes Mission Street from being bound the lease F or the foregoing opinion is issued in assessed reasons the judgment appealed is affirmed accordance with URCA Rule 2 16 1 B against Superior Health and Fitness L L C AFFIRMED 6 and this Costs are
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.
