Union Bank v. Cottonport Ins. Exchange
93 La.App. 3 Cir. 47, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 65, 630 So. 2d 975 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lessor does not breach its obligation to maintain a lessee in peaceable possession, sufficient to terminate a lease, unless the disturbance actually prevents the lessee from using the premises for its intended purpose, even when a superior mortgage claim is being enforced through legal process. Temporary or insignificant disturbances, such as the filing of executory process and brief property visits, do not automatically abrogate a lease if the lessee voluntarily vacates the premises.
Facts:
- Avoyelles Insurance Agency executed a promissory note with The Union Bank, secured by a mortgage on an office building in Hessmer, Louisiana.
- Avoyelles leased the same office building to Cottonport Insurance Exchange for a three-year term beginning May 1, 1988, with both the lease and mortgage properly recorded, and the mortgage being superior to the lease.
- Avoyelles defaulted on its note with The Union Bank.
- On September 28, 1989, The Union Bank filed a petition for executory process to enforce its mortgage on the building.
- On October 21, 1989, an order was signed permitting the seizure and sale of the office building.
- On October 24, 1989, a Bank representative and a sheriff's deputy visited the office building and met Cottonport's representative, Mr. Jerry Guillory, telling him they had come to seize the building.
- After learning of the lease, the Bank representative made a phone call and then left, telling Mr. Guillory they would return later.
- Believing the property could be seized at any time, Mr. Guillory vacated the building, moved Cottonport's offices, and Cottonport subsequently stopped paying monthly rent.
Procedural Posture:
- The Union Bank filed a petition for executory process against Avoyelles Insurance Agency to enforce its mortgage, leading to an order permitting the seizure and sale of the office building.
- The Union Bank filed a lawsuit against Cottonport Insurance Exchange in the trial court (court of first instance) to enforce the lease and collect past due rent and future accelerated rentals.
- The trial court found that the petition for executory process and the signed order for seizure constituted a disturbance of Cottonport's peaceful possession, leading to the termination of the lease, and rendered judgment in favor of Cottonport.
- The Union Bank appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. The Union Bank was the appellant, and Cottonport Insurance Exchange was the appellee.
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 the filing of a petition for executory process, an order for seizure, and brief visits by a sheriff's deputy and bank representatives constitute a disturbance of a lessee's peaceable possession sufficient to terminate a lease agreement when no actual seizure or denial of access occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - WOODARD, J.
No, the filing of a petition for executory process and brief visits by a sheriff's deputy and bank representatives did not constitute a disturbance of Cottonport Insurance Exchange's peaceable possession sufficient to terminate the lease agreement. The court reiterated that a lessor's fundamental obligation is to maintain the lessee in peaceable possession, meaning the lessee must be able to use the premises for its intended purposes. However, in this case, despite the order for seizure and brief visits, no actual seizure ever took place, Cottonport was never denied access to the building, nor was it told to vacate the premises by The Union Bank. The court characterized the visits by the deputy and bank representatives as "temporary or insignificant" disturbances that are not grounds for abrogating a lease. Since Cottonport vacated the building by its own choice and was never actually prevented from using the premises, the trial court erred in concluding that its peaceable possession was disturbed. Consequently, Cottonport breached the lease agreement when it ceased paying rent. The court then calculated damages, ordering Cottonport to pay The Union Bank $9000 in rental payments, plus 15% for attorney's fees ($1350), and 10% yearly interest, all as stipulated in the lease's acceleration clause.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for what constitutes a "disturbance of peaceable possession" under Louisiana lease law, particularly in the context of a mortgagee enforcing a superior claim. It establishes that merely initiating legal proceedings (like executory process) and conducting brief, non-dispossessory visits to the property are insufficient to terminate a lease if the lessee was never actually denied access or explicitly told to vacate. The decision places the burden on the lessee to demonstrate an actual inability to use the premises for its intended purpose, preventing lessees from prematurely abandoning leases based solely on perceived threats of future dispossession.
