Pleasure Beach, L.L.C. VS Darryl Smith
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 0826 PLEASURE BEACH L C VERSUS DARRYL SMITH Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 Appealed from the TwentySecond Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Suit Number 2005 14552 J Honorable William J Crain Presiding Jesse L Wimberly III Jesse L Wimberly IV Counsel for PlaintiffAppellee Pleasure Beach L C Mandeville LA T Jay Scales III Russell W Rudolph Counsel for Defendant Appellant Darryl Smith Michelle Alt Hazlett Hammond LA and Nita J R Gorrell Hammond LA BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ GUIDRY J Defendant Darryl Smith appeals from a judgment of the trial court in favor of plaintiff Pleasure Beach L Pleasure Beach awarding attorney fees and C s court costs after finding that it was entitled to specific performance of a contract to purchase and sell immovable property Smith separately appealed from the trial s court judgment ordering specific performance of the purchase agreement and in Pleasure Beach v Smith 100238 La App 1st Cit 9 unpublished 10 13 opinion this court affirmed the trial court judgment s In his present appeal Smith does not contest the amount of attorney fees s and court costs awarded by the trial court but rather asserts that the judgment should be reversed only if this court rules in his favor on the merits Because this court affirmed the trial court judgment on the merits of Pleasure Beach specific s s performance claim and the agreement specifically provides for the payment of s attorney fees and court costs should the purchaser fail to comply with the terms of the agreement we find no error in the trial court judgment awarding attorney s s fees and court costs to Pleasure Beach Therefore we affirm the judgment of the trial court in accordance with Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 216 6 2A and 8 and assess all appeal costs to appellant Darryl Smith AFFIRMED Pleasure Beach filed a brief and answer to the appeal on June 15 2010 seeking additional s attorney fees for work performed on appeal However this court struck the answer as it was not filed within fifteen days of the return day or the lodging of the record See La C art P A 2133 2
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.
