Daneco LLC v. Just Gators Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
DOCKET NUMBER
2023 CA 0642
DANECO, L.L.C.
VERSUS

JUST GATORS, INC.

pS Judgment Rendered: AUG 08 202

i“

ON APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION C
IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF TERREBONNE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 193702

HONORABLE JUAN W. PICKETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

* OK KK OK
Sye J. Broussard Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
Houma, Louisiana Just Gators, Inc.
Stanwood R. Duval Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
April A. Trahan Daneco, LLC

Harley M. Papa
Houma, Louisiana

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ.

AP Dg iee 4 Th Oy 0 Sg) p Fad po
) PENZY PO De COM Cee pL .

GREENE, J.

This is an appeal of a judgment of eviction. After review, we affirm the trial court's

judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 28, 2018, Daneco, LLC (Daneco) entered into several agreements
pursuant to a Master Business Agreement with Just Gators, Inc. (Just Gators) and LaGarto
Properties. One of the agreements provided that Daneco lease its alligator farm to Just
Gators. The commercial lease provided for a $40,000.00 monthly lease payment from
Just Gators to Daneco, with a six-year term and a right to renew for an additional six-
year term. The lease was specifically limited to “Grow-Up Buildings,” a food storage
structure, a freezer building, a cold storage incubator, two “Polaris Buggies,” one “John
Deere Buggy,” four forklifts, and a Ford flatbed truck.

Over time the relationship between Daneco and Just Gators deteriorated, and on
May 11, 2022, Daneco sent a notice to vacate any and all unleased property to Just
Gators. On May 24, 2022, Daneco filed a petition to evict Just Gators from the “unleased
property,” which was defined as “property owned by [Daneco], including, but not limited
to, heater sheds, pumps, buildings, etc.” Just Gators filed an answer, raising affirmative
defenses and exceptions, and made a reconventional demand. Just Gators asserted that
it had the right to occupy the property pursuant to the lease. In its reconventional
demand, Just Gators asserted the eviction claim was fraudulent and lacked merit. Just
Gators asked that the petition be dismissed at Daneco’s costs, and that it be awarded
expenses, attorney fees, and all other general and equitable relief. The matter was heard
on October 11, 2022.

Thereafter, the trial court granted Daneco’s petition to evict, but did not identify
the property that Just Gators was evicted from. The judgment was signed on March 5,

2023. Just Gators filed a suspensive appeal from that judgment.

! The petition noted that a separate rule to evict Just Gators from the leased property was pending in
Division C, Docket No. 192404.

On January 23, 2024, this Court issued an interim opinion that remanded this
matter to the trial court to correct the deficiency in the judgment and ordered that the
record be supplemented with an amended judgment within 45 days. Daneco, L.L.C. v.
Just Gators, Inc., 2023-0642 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/23/24), 386 So.3d 1086 (interim
opinion). An amended judgment was signed by the trial court on March 7, 2024. The
judgment provides that Just Gators “is hereby evicted and ordered to vacate any and all
property, buildings, heater sheds, pumps, generators, and wharves located on the
Daneco Alligator Farm located off Daneco Court in Houma, Louisiana.” The judgment
further provides that:

This eviction does not apply to the property that is specifically listed in the
Commercial Lease Agreement or the Master Business Agreement executed
by DANECO, LLC and JUST GATORS, INC. on September 28, 2018; which
said property is as follows:

a. 31 Grow-Up Buildings;
b. Food Storage Structure;
c. Freezer Building;
d. Cold Storage for Incubator;
e. 2 Polaris Buggies, VIN# and
VIN#
1 John Deere Buggy, VIN#
g. 4 Forklifts:
(i) Red VIN# P2201-9G2723
(ii) | White VIN# AXXXXXXXX
(iii) Yellow VIN# FN441284
(iv) — Electric VIN# FN441284

sh

h. Ford flatbed truck, VIN# IFDRF3G62HEB83025
THE APPEAL
On appeal, Just Gators maintains that the district court erred in failing to determine
the property it was evicted from was necessary to achieve the purpose of the agreements,
was implied in the agreements, and that equity made this property implied in the
agreement. It also maintains that the district court erred in failing to determine that
usage made the property implied in the agreement; failing to determine the intent of the
parties; and failing to “exercise judicial control” to rule in its favor.
DISCUSSION
Where factual findings are pertinent to the interpretation of a contract, those

factual findings are not to be disturbed unless manifest error is shown. Constantin

Land Trust v. Pitre Industries, L.L.C., 2016-0993 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/10/17), 225 So.3d
1089, 1094, writ denied, 2017-1644 (La. 11/28/17), 230 So.3d 224.

Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the
parties. La. C.C. art. 2045. When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead
to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the
parties’ intent. La. C.C. art. 2046. Although a contract is worded in general terms, it
must be interpreted to cover only those things it appears the parties intended to include.
La. C.C. art. 2051.

The rules of construction do not authorize a perversion of the words or the exercise
of inventive powers to create an ambiguity where none exists or the making of a new
contract when the terms express with sufficient clearness the parties’ intent. The fact
that one party may create a dispute about the meaning of a contractual provision does
not render the provision ambiguous. Campbell v. Melton, 2001-2578 (La. 5/14/02),
817 So.2d 69, 76; Constantin Land Trust, 225 So.3d at 1095. Only when there exists
a doubtful or ambiguous provision, or no governing provision at all, can equity, usage,
conduct, and custom inform the intent of the parties. See La. C.C. arts. 2053 and 2054.

There are approximately 100 acres of property owned by Daneco, with only a
portion of that property leased to Just Gators. In this case, the Commercial Lease
Agreement clearly delineates the structures, vehicles, and equipment that is leased from
Daneco. The lease is clear and unambiguous regarding the property that is leased from
Daneco to Just Gators. See La. C.C. art. 2051. The district court implicitly found that
Just Gators utilized the property at issue with the permission of Daneco, which was
revoked by Daneco’s notice to vacate.

Just Gators maintains that the property should be part of the Commercial Lease
Agreement, and that the property is necessary to achieve the purpose of the agreements.
However, in the suit to evict Just Gators from the leased property, No. 192404, Just
Gators admitted at trial that the disputed items were not included in the lease. Further,
Stefano Pieroni, CEO of Just Gators, admitted at trial that the $40,000.00 per month lease

payments were only for the items specifically listed in the lease.

As noted above, the Commercial Lease Agreement clearly outlines the property
that is included in the lease and Just Gators admitted the lease payments were only for
the property listed in the lease. We find no manifest error in the trial court’s implicit
determination that Just Gators utilized the property with the permission of Daneco, which
was revoked by Daneco’s notice to vacate. The fact that Just Gators seeks to create an
ambiguity in the lease does not render it ambiguous. See Campbell, 817 So.2d at 76.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court judgment evicting Just Gators, Inc. from

specified property is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Just Gators, Inc.

AFFIRMED.