Brian J. Authement VS Brenda Kraft Verges
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 0173 BRIAN J AUTHEMENT VERSUS BRENDA KRAFT VERGES Judgment Rendered SEF 1 3 2010 Appealed from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Docket No 2005 11465 Honorable Reginald T Badeaux III Judge Robert C Stern J Counsel for New Orleans LA Plaintiff Appellant Brian J Authement Eric A Bopp Counsel for Mandeville LA Defendant Appellee Brenda Kraft BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ GUIDRY J In this action for reimbursement of the costs expended in repairing refurbishing and maintaining a boat appellant seeks reversal of the trial court s ruling that the former owner of the boat is not liable by contract or under the theory ofunjust enrichment For the following reasons we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2000 while married to Wade T Verges Brenda Kraft purchased a 1993 Luhrs Yacht for 110 which she named The Brenda The 000 yacht was purchased and titled solely in the name of Brenda Kraft Verges For the first two years that she owned the yacht Ms Kraft kept it docked at a waterfront apartment complex that she helped manage and arranged for one of the other managers at the complex to assist her and Mr Verges in maintaining the yacht In January 2003 Mr Verges moved the yacht to a camp that he had recently purchased in Slidell Louisiana and one of his sons was primarily responsible for maintaining the yacht while it was docked at the camp Later that year however Mr Verges arranged for his friend Brian J Authement to take possession of the yacht On taking possession of the yacht Mr Authement moved it to a boat house that he had leased and he maintained possession of the boat for approximately a year In late 2004 Ms Kraft initiated divorce proceedings to terminate her marriage to Mr Verges and as a consequence she reclaimed possession of The Brenda In response to Ms Kraft reclaiming the yacht Mr Verges and Mr Authement filed liens against the boat in federal court pursuant to maritime law Mr Verges and Ms Kraft entered into a marriage contract establishing a separate property regime on May 25 1995 wherein they expressly agreed that a property acquired by either ny spouse shall be the sole property of the spouse in whose name the property is acquired without any obligation to reimburse the other spouse for any labor or property 2 Although all pleadings filed by the defendant were in the name of Brenda Kraft Verges during trial defendant indicated that she preferred to be called Ms Kraft 2 and had the boat seized but the order of seizure was later vacated and the liens cancelled In the meantime Mr Authement filed the underlying suit claiming that he was entitled to be reimbursed for all services facilities equipment tools and other supplies utilized in outfitting THE BRENDA pursuant to his refurnishing capacity as a mandatary or pursuant to the doctrine of unjust enrichment andor other applicable legal doctrines Following a bench trial the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Ms Kraft and dismissed the suit without prejudice in a judgment signed September 30 2009 It is from that judgment that Mr Authement appeals asserting that the trial court erred in rejecting his claim for the monetary value of materials and labor he expended on The Brenda DISCUSSION Mr Authement primary contention on appeal is that the trial court s erroneously characterized his claim as being one that sounds exclusively in unjust enrichment whereas based on his petition and evidence presented during trial he also presented an alternate claim that Ms Kraft implicitly or tacitly agreed to compensate him for his services based on her awareness of the work he had performed on the yacht and her acquiescence in allowing him to perform the work In other words Mr Authement contends that a binding contract was formed between him and Ms Kraft based on her knowledge of and acquiescence to the work he performed A contract is formed by the consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance Unless the law prescribes a certain formality for the intended contract offer and acceptance may be made orally in writing or by action or At trial Mr Authement admitted that all conversations regarding his being reimbursed or obtaining an ownership interest in the yacht in exchange for the labor and materials expended on the boat were with Mr Verges but it was his understanding that Ms Kraft concurred in the agreement 3 inaction that under the circumstances is clearly indicative of consent La C art 1927 In this case Mr Authement asserts that Ms Kraft knowledge of the work s he was performing on the yacht and her failure to object to his performing such work established her consent Consent of the parties is necessary to form a valid contract Where there is no meeting of the minds between the parties a contract is void for lack of consent Aaron Turner L v Perret 07 1701 p 10 La App 1st Cir 5 22 So C 09 4 3d 910 917 writ denied 09 1148 La 10 19 So 3d 476 Thus critical to 09 16 the merits of Mr Authement sclaim is whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish that Ms Kraft consented to an agreement to compensate Mr Authement for the materials and services he expended on The Brenda The only evidence presented at trial regarding the alleged agreement derives from the testimony of the parties The existence or nonexistence of a contract is a question of fact not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong Belin v Dugdale 405 45 p 9 La App 2d Cir 6 10 30 So 3d When consent is not express or when the law creates no presumption of consent the trial judge is to ascertain from the facts and circumstances of the case whether the parties consent is to be implied from them Knecht v Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities and Northwestern State University 591 So 2d 690 694 La 1991 Where there are two permissible views of the evidence the factfinder choice s between them cannot be manifestly erroneous In re Succession of Wagner 08 0212 p 21 La App 1 st Cir 8993 So 2d 709 723 08 In its reasons for judgment the trial court in this case stated that g the iven contradictory nature of the parties testimony regarding the existence of a contract between them and the lack of corroborating evidence this Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown there to be such a contract Having carefully reviewed the evidence we find no manifest error in this determination and therefore reject this 4 argument by Mr Authement See Yelverton v Massenberg 387 So 2d 664 665 La App 1 st Cir 1980 Likewise we find no merit in Mr Authement alternative argument that the s trial court erred in finding he was not entitled to recover pursuant to the remedy of unjust enrichment According to La C art 2298 unjust enrichment is referred to as enrichment without cause and that article expressly states that the subsidiary remedy is not available if the law provides another remedy for the impoverishment or declares a contrary rule In this case as noted by the trial court in its reasons for judgment there are other remedies available to Mr Authement in that he could seek reimbursement from Mr Verges As such we find no error in the trial court determination that Mr Authement is not entitled to s recover pursuant to the remedy of unjust enrichment or enrichment without cause CONCLUSION Considering on the foregoing review we affirm the judgment of the trial court based on its finding that a valid contract did not exist between the parties and that appellant is not entitled to be reimbursed under the remedy of enrichment without cause All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant Brian J Authement 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.
