Carriere v. Bank of Louisiana
702 So. 2d 648, 1996 WL 931634 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The purchaser of a mortgaged 'leasehold estate' at a foreclosure sale acquires only the lessee's right of occupancy, use, and enjoyment, not the lessee's obligation to pay rent, when the lease and mortgage documents are structured to sever those interests.
Facts:
- Shirley and Richard Carriere, landowners, entered into a ground lease with Frank Occhipinti, Inc. for the purpose of constructing and operating a restaurant on their property.
- Occhipinti obtained financing for the restaurant's construction from a lender, which eventually became Bank of Louisiana (BOL).
- As security for the loan, Occhipinti mortgaged his 'leasehold estate' and the restaurant improvements to BOL.
- The lease was amended multiple times to protect the lender, including giving the lender the option to 'stand in the shoes' of the lessee and expressly waiving the lender's liability for rent payments as a mortgagee.
- Occhipinti subsequently defaulted on both his rent payments to the Carrieres and his mortgage payments to BOL.
- Occhipinti filed for bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy trustee rejected the ground lease.
- BOL initiated foreclosure proceedings on its mortgage against Occhipinti's leasehold estate and improvements.
- At the resulting sheriff's sale, BOL was the highest bidder and purchased Occhipinti's 'leasehold estate' and the restaurant building.
Procedural Posture:
- After lessee Occhipinti defaulted on rent, the Carrieres (lessors) filed a 'Petition To Terminate Lease and for Possession of Premises' against Occhipinti in the 24th Judicial District Court (trial court).
- Following BOL's purchase of the leasehold at a sheriff's sale, the Carrieres amended their petition to add BOL as a defendant.
- The trial court entered judgment for the Carrieres, terminating the lease and ordering BOL to vacate the premises.
- BOL, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal; the Carrieres were appellees.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the lease remained in effect and BOL could not be evicted in a summary proceeding.
- The Carrieres then filed a new suit against BOL in the trial court, seeking past-due rental payments and property taxes.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of BOL, dismissing the Carrieres' suit.
- The Carrieres, as appellants, appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, which vacated the summary judgment and remanded for a trial on the merits.
- After trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Carrieres for $398,032.05.
- BOL, as appellant, again appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the award for past rent and taxes but vacated the attorney's fees award and remanded.
- BOL then applied for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party who purchases a mortgaged 'leasehold estate' at a foreclosure sale, which was created by a ground lease, become obligated to pay rent to the landowner under that lease?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kimball (on rehearing)
No, a party who purchases a mortgaged 'leasehold estate' at a foreclosure sale does not become obligated to pay rent to the landowner. Louisiana law has long recognized that a lessee's right of occupancy, use, and enjoyment can be legally severed from the lessee's obligation to pay rent. The mortgage document in this case used the term 'leasehold estate' rather than mortgaging the 'ground lease' in its entirety, indicating an intent to mortgage something less than the full collection of rights and obligations. This interpretation is supported by various lender-protection clauses in the lease amendments, which were designed to limit the bank's exposure. Therefore, when BOL purchased the mortgaged property at the sheriff's sale, it acquired only Occhipinti's right of occupancy, while the obligation to pay rent remained with Occhipinti. Furthermore, the Carrieres' claim for unjust enrichment fails because there was a legal justification for BOL's enrichment found in the valid juridical act of the lease and mortgage contracts they signed. The 'step in the shoes' provision was an optional remedy that BOL chose not to exercise, opting instead for the separate remedy of foreclosure.
Dissenting - Justice Knoll (on rehearing)
Yes, the bank should be obligated to pay rent. The term 'Leasehold Estate' should be interpreted as the entire lease, including all rights and obligations. The mortgage documents expressly incorporated '[a]ll rights, duties and obligations' of the mortgagor, Occhipinti, which logically includes the primary duty to pay rent. To suggest the parties intended to sever the right of occupancy from the obligation to pay rent is an archaic interpretation that should only apply when explicitly stated, which it was not here. By foreclosing and taking possession, BOL effectively became the lessee and should be liable for the rent provided in the lease.
Dissenting - Justice Johnson (on rehearing)
Yes, the bank should be obligated to pay rent. The Carrieres have been attempting to collect rent on their property since 1989 while BOL has had full use and occupancy. A prior appellate court decision held that the lease remained in effect, which became the 'law of the case.' This court's majority decision unfairly requires the Carrieres to ignore that ruling and start new legal proceedings, which is unjust after such protracted litigation. The bank should not be allowed to occupy the property rent-free.
Analysis:
This decision provides significant clarity on the nature of leasehold mortgages in Louisiana, affirming that the right of occupancy can be contractually severed from the obligation to pay rent. It creates a favorable environment for lenders financing projects on leased land, as it protects them from automatically inheriting a defaulting borrower's rent obligations upon foreclosure. The ruling underscores the critical importance of precise drafting in commercial leases and mortgages, as the court's distinction between a 'leasehold estate' and the 'lease' itself was determinative. This precedent will likely influence how such financing deals are structured, with lenders insisting on language that limits their obligations if they are forced to take over the collateral.
