Sunset Realty, Inc. v. Culp

Citations: 184 So. 3d 256; 2016 La. App. LEXIS 27; 2016 WL 154826Docket: Nos. 50,363-CA, 50,364-CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 12, 2016; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sunset Realty, Inc. appeals a judgment from the 4th Judicial District Court in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana, which granted summary judgment to defendant Larry Culp, dismissing all claims made by Sunset Realty. The case involves an alleged oral contractual agreement between Sunset Realty, represented by CEO Edward Hakim, and home builder Culp regarding two specific lots in the Acadian Trace Subdivision. Sunset Realty claimed Culp agreed to build residences on the lots, purchase them, and secure buyers, while Sunset Realty financed the construction. Initially, the lots were owned by Sunset Realty during construction and sold to Culp only after completion.

Sunset Realty filed lawsuits for each lot in June 2007, which were later consolidated. In June 2010, they expanded their claims to include nine lots, alleging Culp had overcharged them. By May 2011, Sunset Realty amended their complaint to indicate it had transferred the construction costs to French Acadian Homes LLC, which was not included as a party in the lawsuit. This amendment suggested a misrepresentation of facts, as Sunset Realty admitted it had not paid any construction costs to Culp as initially claimed. The act of assignment to French Acadian Homes was executed after the original lawsuits were filed, and Edward Hakim had interests in both entities.

Culp moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence supporting Sunset Realty’s claims and that any contract for the sale of immovable property required a written agreement to be enforceable. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, leading to the current appeal. The summary judgment standard indicates that such a motion can be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact, allowing the mover to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

An adverse party must provide specific facts through affidavits or appropriate evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial, as stated in La. C.C.P. art. 967(B). Appellate review of summary judgments is de novo, applying the same criteria as the trial court. Sunset Realty claims the trial court erred by determining their relationship with Culp was merely a real estate buy/sell contract, arguing it involved Culp constructing houses and securing buyers while Sunset Realty financed operations. However, Culp contends that any agreements regarding immovable property must be in writing under La. C.C. art. 2440, which requires sales or promises of sale of immovable property to be documented through an authentic act or private signature.

The case centers on an alleged agreement for the future purchase of immovable property. The facts indicate that there was no written agreement, only a verbal understanding, which does not satisfy legal requirements. Although limited exceptions exist for waiving written contracts, none apply here. The court emphasizes that a binding contract only exists once a written agreement is executed and signed. Both parties intended to finalize their agreement in writing, meaning no enforceable contract existed based on the initial handshake. Sunset Realty’s anticipated future written agreement further underscores the lack of an enforceable contract concerning lots 4 and 6. Consequently, the court ruled that summary judgment was appropriate, and Sunset Realty's appeal on this matter lacks merit.

Sunset Realty asserts that even if the contract in question is a buy/sell contract requiring written form, Culp remains liable for damages related to alleged overcharges. Sunset Realty claims that construction costs were paid by another entity, French Acadian Homes, LLC, which assigned its claims against Culp to Sunset Realty. However, there is no evidence supporting allegations of overcharges. Hakim, in his deposition, exhibited uncertainty regarding his role with Sunset Realty and whether French Acadian Homes financed the construction, and he had no clear recollection of the assignment to Sunset Realty. Sunset Realty did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact or meet its evidentiary burden for trial. Consequently, the assignment of error is deemed without merit, leading to the affirmation of the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Culp. All appellate costs are assigned to Sunset Realty. The application for rehearing was denied, and recent amendments to the relevant code article have not altered its substance.