Bernhard Mechanical Contractors, Inc. VS Joseph Thomas Spinosa, Perkins Rowe Associates, LLC, Perkins Rowe Associates, II, LLC, and Echelon Construction Services, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 0823 BERNHARD MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC VERSUS JOSEPH THOMAS SPINOSA PERKINS ROWE ASSOCIATES LLC PERKINS ROWE ASSOCIATES II LLC AND ECHELON CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC r Judgment Rendered s 2 2013 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST FELICIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 39154 DIVISION A THE HONORABLE GEORGE H WARE JR JUDGE Craig L Kaster Attorneys for PlaintiffAppellee Teresa D Cop Zachary Louisiana Bernhard Mechanical Contractors Inc M Brent Hicks Attorneys for DefendantAppellant Joseph Thomas Spinosa Katherine Eckert Sumner Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ con MCDONALD J Parties in this case appeal a judgment rendered by the 20 Judicial District Court For the following reasons the judgment is affirmed On June 26 2008 Bernhard Mechanical Contractors Inc Bernhard filed suit against 1 Echelon Construction Services LLC 2 Perkins Rowe Associates LLC 3 Perkins Rowe Associates 11 LLC and Joseph Thomas Spinosa seeking 65 993 827 1 for services arising out of the construction of the Perkins Rowe development in Baton Rouge Louisiana This lawsuit led to the compromise settlement that is the subject of the instant appeal Bernhard was a subcontractor on the Perkins Rowe project located in Baton Rouge Louisiana Prior to June 2008 Bernhard and Spinosa had reached a settlement agreement on a lawsuit that required Bernhard to complete specified work per the contract plans specifications documents and project observation reports and refrain from placing a lien encumbrance or other burden on immovable property comprising all or any portion of the project In exchange Spinosa individually and on behalf of Perkins Rowe Associates LLC Perkins Rowe Associates 11 LLC and Echelon Construction Services LLC agreed to be obligated in solido for the amounts in dispute The agreement also contained a timetable for the amounts owed to Bernhard to be paid and Bernhard reserved the right to pursue the unbilled portion of the subcontract and certain unpaid invoices The right to bring claims against Bernhard was reserved by the defendants In the litigation that is the basis for this appeal all parties were represented by counsel The personal representative of the defendant LLCs was Joseph Thomas Spinosa On September 3 2009 the morning of trial the parties reached a settlement agreement and placed the terms and conditions on the record Thereafter on September 9 2009 a Consent Judgment was signed by a judge in the 20 Judicial District Court The judgment had been circulated and agreed upon 2 by attorneys representing both the plaintiff and the defendants rendered Judgment was in favor of Bernhard and against the defendants Perkins Rowe Associates LLC Perkins Rowe Associates 11 LLC and Echelon Construction Services LLC in solido It also provided that Spinosa personally and individually was obligated for 1678 00 000 The judgment recited terms for payment and reserved Spinosa right to bring claims against Bernhard all of which had been s agreed to by the parties In March 2010 the 19th Judicial District Court signed an ex parte order making the 20 Judicial District Court consent judgment executory and also ordering that certain actions requested by Bernhard be taken In response to suit number 588 Spinosa filed a Motion for Preliminary and Permanent 427 Injunction Enjoining Enforcement of Judgment and for Mandamus Spinosa asserted that the consent judgment could not be executed against him because it was not final and enforceable and he sought injunctive relief and requested that a mandamus be issued to the East Baton Rouge Clerk of Court to cancel the inscription of the judgment from the official records The district court denied the relief sought by Spinosa This decision was appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeal This court held that the consent judgment was not enforceable because it did not have proper decrcial language See Bernhard Mechanical Contractors Inc v Spinosa 2010 1461 La App 1 Cir 2 unpublished opinion 11 11 Bernhard attempting to enforce the agreement that the parties had entered into to avoid the September 3 2009 trial returned to the 20i Judicial District Court and filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement The trial court reviewed the sequence of events that had transpired in this matter noted that additional litigation was pending between the parties and amended the September 9 2009 judgment to include decretal language on the portion of the judgment regarding Spinosa s personal obligation Spinosa appeals asserting three assignments of error 3 successively arguing that the court erred by amending the contractual agreement into a final judgment DISCLSSION Spinosa presents as fact that this court has already ruled that the consent judgment entered into the record in the 20 Judicial District Court on September 3 2009 is nothing more than a contractual settlement agreement between the parties and not a final and executable judgment What the court found regarding the September 9 2009 agreement was that it lacked decretal language with regard to the obligation assumed by Spinosa personally The court did not intend to nullify s Spinosa obligation In fact and law this court would not have that authority It is also argued that the amendment of the consent judgment to add decretal language amended the substantive terms of the settlement agreement matter both parties were represented by counsel corporate defendants and the corporate plaintiff There were in this four named The four corporate defendants were represented by Joseph Thomas Spinosa who had the authority to settle matters for the LLCs named The president and vice president of Bernhard Kenneth Wayne Bernhard and Charles Robert Bernhard represented Bernhard in the same capacity A trial was scheduled on September 3 2009 and the attorneys representing the parties reached an agreement prior to the trial The agreement was recited into the record in open court The district court judge was particularly attentive to the matter and closely questioned Spinosa and both Bernhards as to their understanding and agreement to the settlement The district court questioned each party individually saying to Spinosa Now Mr Spinosa on behalf of yourself individually and these other companies that you represent is this your settlement and agreement Mr Spinosa answered Your Honor 1 accept the terms of the settlement as y read into the all record After determining that all parties understood the agreement the court 4 said All right The court will accept and adopt the agreement settlement and compromise between the parties and judgment will be signed accordingly A compromise is a contract whereby the parties through concessions made by one or more of them settle a dispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation or other legal relationship La C art 3071 A compromise shall be made in writing or recited in open court in which case the recitation shall be susceptible of being transcribed from the record of the proceedings La C art 3072 A contract is an agreement by two or more parties whereby obligations are created modified or extinguished La C art 1906 Not only does the party seeking to nullify a settlement agreement bear the burden of proof but the law strongly favors compromise agreements between the parties City of Baton Rouge v Douglas 1153 007 1 La App l Cur 2 984 So 746 749 writ denied 20080939 8 2d La 61120 983 So 1284 Legal agreements have the effect of law upon the 08 2d parties and as they bind themselves they shall be held to a full performance of the obligations flowing therefrom OdYssea Vessccls Inc v A B Industries of Morgan Gty Inc 20 11 2009 La App l Cir 694 So 3d 182 190 12 13 Applying the applicable law we find no reason why this agreement is only a contract and not an enforceable judgment The fact that it lacked decretal language did not change the nature of the obligation agreed to by Spinosa The judgment as amended by the district court was a change to the phraseology of the judgment but not the substance Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1951 provides A final judgment may be amended by the trial court at any time with or without notice on its own motion or motion of any party To 1 after the phraseology of the judgment but not the substance or 2 To correct errors of calculation 5 The personal obligation to which Spinosa agreed has not been altered in any way and according to his brief the judgment is virtually identical to the stipulation placed on the record We do not agree that the district court exceeded its authority in adding decretal language This court frequently returns judgments to the district courts for the addition of decrctal language in order to conform the judgment to legal requirements of form Abundant case law supports the proposition that it is not the province of the courts to relieve a party of a bad bargain ITU Realtors Inc v D L Pairwccy Property Management LLC 2009 2145 La App 1 Cir 719 42 So 1116 1131 10 3d Furthermore there is no indication in the matter before us that Spinosa should not be held to the agreement he made and as jurisprudence holds this court does not have the authority to change a valid compromise agreement For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed Costs are assessed against Joseph Thomas Spinosa AFFIRMED 6
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.
