Billy Sumrall d/b/a Amite Homes, Inc. VS Able Mobile Housing, Inc. a/k/a Able Mobile Housing
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 2127 BILLY SUMRALL dba AMITE HOMES INC VERSUS ABLE MOBILE HOUSING INC k a ABLE MOBILE HOUSING Judgment Rendered May 6 2011 IN S On Appeal from the 21 st Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Trial Court No 2006 0003332 c 2006 0003380 w The Honorable Zorraine M Waguespack Judge Presiding Christopher Moody Julie R Johnson Attorneys for Defendant Appellant Able Mobile Housing Inc Hammond LA Charles M Reid Amite LA Attorney for PlaintiffAppellee Billy Sumrall d a Amite Homes Inc b BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J CARTER C J Able Mobile Housing Inc Able appeals a judgment ordering it to pay rent and costs of materials to Billy Sumrall dba Amite Homes Inc Sumrall pursuant to a lease between the parties FACTS AMD PROCEDURAL HISTORY Days after Hurricane Katrina struck Able and Sumrall began communicating about Able leasing property from Sumrall ofstate business that works with insurance and Able is an out temporary housing companies to provide temporary onsite housing mobile homes travel trailers and park models for clients with losses due to such events as fires floods tornadoes or hurricanes Sumrall owns a mobile home sales center and leases a commercial tract of land in Amite Louisiana Able and Sumrall began talking about Able leasing the tract in Amite from Sumrall for travel trailers to house adjusters working in New Orleans Able CEO prepared a s lease document and faxed it to Sumrall Sumrall signed the document then faxed it back to Able No Able representative signed the lease document The parties dispute what happened next Sumrall maintains that he was being rushed by Able to prepare the site and was told not to worry about the paperwork Sumrall thought that the lease was a done deal as evidenced by the arrival of housing units s Able CEO explained that he was looking for a lot for travel trailers to house insurance adjusters for a third party temporary housing company with whom his company did business s Able position is that the lease document faxed to Sumrall was only a proposal that was sent to Sumrall to I s Sumrall testimony that he is authorized by the tract owners to sublease the s tract is uncontradicted We note too that La Civ Code Ann art 2674 provides that a lease of a thing that does not belong to the lessor may nevertheless be binding on the parties 2 show him what a lease might look like Able maintains that the third party company rejected the site due to its distance from New Orleans and that they told Sumrall the deal was off but since Sumrall had expended funds on the site they entered an agreement for Sumrall to clean restore and stage some of their housing units Able has no record of how many of its units were on s Sumrall lot but does not believe that any were ever hooked up to electricity water and sewerage or occupied Sumrall denies being told the deal was off and testified that the agreement for him to clean and restore units was in addition to the lease agreement Able contends that no demand for rental payment was ever made while Sumrall contends that he spoke with Able CEO who generally s put him off A lease is a contract by which the lessor binds himself to give the lessee the use and enjoyment of a thing for a term in exchange for a rent that the lessee binds himself to pay La Civ Code Ann art 2668 The essential elements of the lease are the thing the price rent and the consent of the parties Monterrey Center LLC v Education Partners Inc 080734 La App 1 Cir 12 5 So 3d 225 230 The lease contract may be 08 23 oral or written La Civ Code Ann art 2681 Further when a written contract is contemplated or required the party that proposes the contract may be bound if the contract was prepared under its direction and the contract clearly indicates the drafter intent to be bound once the other party s assents thereto See Finishers Drywall Inc v B G Realty Inc 516 So 2d 420 422 La App 1 Cir 1987 Whether a lease exists is a question of fact Southern Treats Inc v Titan Properties L 40 La App 2 Cir 4 927 So 2d 677 C 873 06 19 N 683 writ denied 06 1170 La 9 936 So 2d 1271 An appellate 06 15 court cannot set aside a trial court finding of fact in the absence of s manifest error or unless those findings are clearly wrong Rosell v ESCO 549 So 840 844 La 1989 If the findings are reasonable in light of the 2d record reviewed in its entirety an appellate court may not reverse those findings even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact it would have weighed the evidence differently Id Where there is conflict in testimony reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed Stobart v State DOTD 617 So 2d 8801 88283 La 1993 The fact finder choice s between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong Stobart 617 So 2d at 883 Additionally where the fact finder conclusions are based on determinations regarding the s credibility of a witness the manifest error standard demands great deference to the trier of fact because only the trier of fact can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the s listener understanding and belief in what is said Rosell 549 So 2d at 844 In this case the trial court obviously credited the testimony of Sumrall over that of Able CEO s The trial court also considered the exigent circumstances created by Hurricane Katrina during which Sumrall and Able negotiated The trial court made a factual determination that a valid lease existed between the parties After reviewing the record and considering the trial court credibility determination we cannot say the conclusion that a s lease existed is manifestly erroneous 2 Able does not challenge the particular amounts awarded in the judgment pursuant to the lease M As we find no manifest error in the trial court finding that a valid s lease existed we do not address Able second assignment of error which is s premised on its position that there was no valid lease in force CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to Able Mobile Housing Inc This memorandum opinion is issued in compliance with URCA Rule 2 16 B 1 AFFIRMED 5
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.
