Richard M. Chashoudian and Nicole Chashoudian VS Leonard Pate as Trustee of the Kathleen Reges Living Trust and Leonard Pate
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 1985 RICHARD M CHASHOUDIAN NICOLE CHASHOUDIAN VERSUS LEONARD PATE AS TRUSTEE OF THE KATHLEEN REGES LIVING TRUST Judgment On Appeal LEONARD PATE MAY 2 6 2009 rendered from the Parish of East Baton 19th Judicial District Court Rouge State of Louisiana Suit Number 543 703 Division The Honorable Donald R Johnson N 27 Judge Presiding Robert L Atkinson Counsel for Plaintiffs Appellants Nicole Richard Chashoudian Baton Chashoudian Carroll DeVillier Jr Rouge Edwin L LA Counsel for Defendant Appellee Hightower Leonard Pate Marshall M Redmon Baton Rouge LA Kathleen as Trustee of the Reges Living Trust Leonard Pate BEFORE f chZr CARTER C J r v WHIPPLE AND DOWNING JJ DOWNING J Richard M and Nicole Chashoudian them and in favor of Leonard Pate the Trust appeal addresses we two judgments rendered trustee of the as Kathleen the For the 6 March 2008 following reasons affirm in part and we judgment against Reges Living and Leonard Pate dated March 4 2008 and March 6 intertwined court appeal although Trust 2008 the This issues are in part the judgment of the trial we reverse remand for further proceedings PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Kathleen terrier Reges was the owner of dogs when she died in July 2005 of her owner dog and Reges On The Chashoudians dogs was boarding at least purebred champion quality are Reges After trustee over s death dispute a expenses for the dogs death the Trust became the s four of her terriers with the Chashoudians an 2 500 00 per month for the Reges care contract and in which Reges paid training of the dogs between the Chashoudians and Pate the arose Pate oral paid the 2 500 00 for two months but October 17 2005 he advised the Chashoudians in writing that all agreements cancelled He no more payments for the dogs until he did After suit against seized the 2006 I The so correspondence care dogs in place a of the March 6 an of the dogs in dogs He did not were the Chashoudians additional payment of and demands back and forth Pate and the Trust in Pate filed appeal he made s on 2 500 00 He request return of the in a letter dated December 17 2005 They also obtained dogs records for Reges In November 2005 possession made all requested fox world class trainers for this breed of Apparently Reges and the Chashoudians had the Chashoudians wue a non and May the Chashoudians filed 2006 for services rendered in caring for the resident writ of attachment for four appointed the Chashoudians reconventional demand 2008 judgment is addressed in 2 a as their dogs which keepers In June asserting conversion of property and companion ease 2008CA2111 seeking their writ of a petition to assert 3224 and 3225 The February first a sequestration The a dogs of right were injunctive relief The Chashoudians amended and retention pursuant pledge released 26 2007 final partial The trial judgment through issued decrees a as The entered court two states judgment writ of attachment by came on C C 4 for bench trial on The and addressed Pate 2008 that arts 5 2006 in favor of Pate judgments signed March was to La by order dated September to Pate principal and reconventional demands claims in reconvention seized and said dogs the Chashoudians were The trial s improperly court then follows IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the claims of the plaintiff in reconvention Leonard Pate IT IS FURTHER ORDERED are hereby granted ADJUDGED AND DECREED that within days of the signing of this order the defendants in reconvention shall produce to Pate all property of the Trust which is in their possession including dogs documents awards and any compensation from the use sale or transfer of the dogs and the defendants in reconvention shall give a full accounting of all property not currently in their possession 30 thirty ADJUDGED AND DECREED that any future receipt of property of the Trust by the defendants in reconvention shall be produced to Pate including but not limited to the dog with the call IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and any of Leo name compensation from the lease of said dog IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all costs of these plaintiff 21 619 50 of the interest and attorney fees in reconvention shall be paid by the defendants in reconvention proceedings judicial The second final claims Chashoudians Kathleen Reges October 17 necessary were 2005 judgment signed The March 6 on judgment stated that properly terminated by the and that no subsequent The trial court then issued decrees as prior agreements any Trust in expenses addressed the 2008 with correspondence dated of the plaintiffs were follows IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the claims of the plaintiffs for payment of services IT IS FURTHER ORDERED are hereby dismissed ADJUDGED AND DECREED that claims of the plaintiffs for any expenses incurred after October 17 2005 dismissed 3 are hereby IT IS FURTHER ORDERED of these proceedings are ADJUDGED AND DECRED that all assigned to the plaintiffs The Chashoudians filed motions for were 1 denied The court on both judgments which as follows erred dogs trial of nature The trial pursuant erred court Chashoudians 3 trial by not awarding the Chashoudians the costs and expenses they incurred during the 11 1 2 months in which the Chashoudians maintained the possession and provided care and daily sustenance to the dogs or by awarding the Chashoudians their necessary expenses in caring for the 2 new They now appeal asserting five assignments of error The trial costs a was pledge court because the finding that the seizure of the 13 3881 and lor any of the S is statue recognize that the seizure inapplicable to the dogs exceptions facts presented was the by in the proper because the Chashoudians held a privilege for expenses incurred in caring for the dogs erred in to La R to by failing improper stated thereunder by awarding attorneys fees as a result of an alleged wrongful seizure because no wrongful seizure occurred or at a minimum by failing to limit the award of attorneys fees to those related to securing the return of the seized dogs 4 The trial court erred 5 The trial to Pate court give certain lease a by requiring that the Chashoudians give certain property full accounting for all property held by the trust and pay Pate erred compensation DISCUSSION This OpInIOn addresses the first assignment of assignment of error directly raised under the March Chashoudians claims that any entitled contract to posseSSIOn ended recover The Chashoudians appear on October 17 2005 expenses for They cite La preservation C C art 527 which error 6 2008 to They of the This is the judgment regarding the accept the trial argue court s however that dogs while they were finding they The evicted possessor whether in good or in bad faith is entitled to recover from the owner compensation for necessary expenses incurred for the preservation of the thing and for the They argue that these expenses exceed not entitled 2 500 00 per month 4 to are in their provides discharge of private or public burdens He is expenses for ordinary maintenance or repairs only recover We agree that under Art 527 the Chashoudians expenses incurred for the necessary Even Pate possession dogs although he We maintenance Mrs through 2005 argues without citation to disagree Chashoudian expenses incurred for the October 2005 responsible The Chashoudians first judgment were paid to as the record which expenses of the preservation dogs dogs care through paid October the Chashoudians for the necessary of error in their court possession after erred in has merit it dismissed the any expenses incurred after October 17 2005 from for the were expenses finding that no necessary assignment of the trial court insofar is excluded authority that dog food therefore that the trial expenses after October 17 2005 the necessary expense for the a preservation of the dogs while We conclude recover while in their dogs pled and testified that the dogs Pate is to argument Pate agrees that he October 2005 Accordingly with this entitled of the preservation in brief that food is concurs are were while in the Chashoudians will remand this matter to the trial court for claims of the However necessary a We will we are expenses possession reverse the plaintiffs for unable to discern incurred for the Accordingly we determination of such necessary expenses DECREE We the reverse claims of the remand this the March 6 2008 plaintiffs matter to incurred for the matter insofar as it dismissed for any expenses incurred after October 17 2005 the trial court for a We determination of the necessary expenses preservation of the dogs while in the Chashoudians possession all other respects the Leonard Pate judgment in this judgment individually and REVERSED IN PART is affirmed as trustee Costs of this of the Kathleen AFFIRMED IN PART 5 appeal are Reges Living assessed Trust REMANDED In to
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.
