Steve Thibodeaux, Indiv. and D/B/A C & B Construction v. Kaufman Trailers, Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-885

STEVE THIBODEAUX, INDIV. AND D/B/A C&B CONSTRUCTION

VERSUS

KAUFMAN TRAILERS, INC.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 68,448-A
HONORABLE JOHN LARRY VIDRINE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and
Marc T. Amy, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Jonathan Clyde Vidrine
West & Vidrine
P. O. Drawer 1019
Ville Platte, LA 70586
Telephone: (337) 363-2772
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - Steve Thibodeaux, Indiv. and d/b/a C&B
Construction

Douglas Daniel Brown
406 West Morris Avenue – Suite C
Hammond, LA 70403
Telephone: (985) 310-6900
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - Kaufman Trailers, Inc.

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

In this redhibition action, Kaufman Trailers, Inc. appeals the trial

court’s judgment granting Steve Thibodeaux, d/b/a C&B Construction, rescission

of a sale and return of the purchase price of a trailer. Kaufman asserts that Mr.

Thibodeaux never proved ownership of the trailer and that even if ownership was

proven, Mr. Thibodeaux continued to use the trailer despite its defects, negating his

claim for rescission. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

I.

ISSUE

We will consider whether the trial court erred in granting a rescission

of sale and return of the purchase price of the trailer to Mr. Thibodeaux.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Thibodeaux is in the dirt construction business, and his company

is C&B Construction. In 2006, Mr. Thibodeaux decided to purchase a hauling

trailer for business use. He testified that he wanted to purchase a “Pintle Hitch

Trailer capable of hauling a piece of equipment, the maximum width allowed

without a permit.” Mr. Thibodeaux contacted Kaufman, and the parties ultimately

contracted for the manufacture and sale of a trailer with a width of 102 inches.

Kaufman charged Mr. Thibodeaux $13,080.00 for the trailer. Mr.

Thibodeaux placed a down payment of $3,649.50 and financed the remainder of

the purchase for forty-eight months with BB&T Leasing Corporation. He testified

that, with tax and interest, his total investment in the trailer amounted to

$18,765.16.1

Kaufman delivered the trailer to Mr. Thibodeaux’s business, C&B

Construction. Mr. Thibodeaux immediately noticed that the width of the trailer did

not meet his specifications. Notably, Kaufman manufactured and delivered a

trailer that was slightly over ninety-nine inches in width. Before using the trailer,

Mr. Thibodeaux contacted Kaufman about the width differential. He testified that

Kaufman ignored his complaint.

Following Kaufman’s refusal to rescind the sale or replace the trailer,

Mr. Thibodeaux was forced to hire others to haul the piece of equipment for which

the trailer was purchased. He testified that he was able to use the trailer for other

purposes but not for its intended purpose. He also claimed that the deficiency in

the trailer’s width inconvenienced his business greatly.

Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Kaufman sold the

trailer knowing that the defect existed at the time of sale and, thus, was in bad

faith. The trial court ordered Kaufman to pay Mr. Thibodeaux $18,765.76, plus

interest from the date of judicial demand as well as $7,500.00 plus legal interest in

attorney fees. Kaufman appeals the trial court’s judgment. Mr. Thibodeaux

neglected to file an answer to the appeal but requests, in brief, attorney fees for

work performed on this appeal.

III.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

The existence of redhibitory defects is a question of fact, and the trial

court’s conclusions about them should not be set aside absent manifest error.
1
We note that Mr. Thibodeaux’s calculation of the total cost of the trailer is $.60 less than
the amount awarded by the trial court. Since Kaufman has not complained about this
discrepancy, we will not address it further.
2

Parker v. Dubus Engine Co., 563 So.2d 355 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990). An appellate

court may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact absent manifest error or unless

the fact finder is clearly wrong. Lewis v. State, Through Dep’t of Transp. and

Dev., 94-2370 (La. 4/21/95), 654 So.2d 311; Thomas v. Albertsons, Inc., 28,950

(La.App. 2 Cir. 12/11/96), 685 So.2d 1134, writ denied, 97-0391 (La. 3/27/97),

692 So.2d 395.

Redhibition

Redhibition is defined in La.Civ.Code art. 2520, and is “the avoidance

of a sale on account of some vice or defect in the thing sold, which renders it either

absolutely useless, or its use so inconvenient and imperfect, that it must be

supposed that the buyer would not have purchased it, had he known of the vice.”

La. Indus. v. Bogator, Inc., 605 So.2d 213, 216 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992). The

existence of such a defect gives a buyer the right to obtain rescission of the sale or

a reduction in the price. La.Civ.Code art. 2520.

Indeed,

“In situations where new vehicles present such defects as
would render their use inconvenient and imperfect to the
extent that the buyer would not have purchased the
automobile had he or she known of the defects, the buyer
is entitled to a rescission of the sale instead of merely a
reduction in the price.”

Jones v. Winnebago Indus., Inc., 47,137, p. 7 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/16/12), 92 So.3d
1113, 1118.

Ownership of the Vehicle

Kaufman argues that Mr. Thibodeaux has no valid claim for rescission

because he failed to establish ownership of the trailer. The trial court disagreed,

finding that Mr. Thibodeaux purchased the trailer and had it shipped to his

company, C&B Construction. In cases, such as this one, where the fact finder

3

concludes that a party carried his burden of proof, a credibility determination can

be implied from that finding

An appellate court cannot reverse a trial court’s factual findings that

are based on a reasonable credibility evaluation if the record “furnishes a

reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s finding.” Marange v. Custom Metal

Fabricators, Inc., 11-2678, p. 7 (La. 7/2/12), 93 So.3d 1253, 1258 (quoting Canter

v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716, 724 (La.1973)). When, as here, “there is conflict

in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of

fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel

that its own evaluations and inferences are reasonable.” Id.

Contrary to Kaufman’s claims, Mr. Thibodeaux’s testimony that he

owned the trailer is corroborated by documentary evidence introduced at trial.

Indeed, the invoice for the trailer indicates a sales price, the “sales order” and

“salesperson” data, and it notes that the trailer was shipped to C&B Construction, a

company owned by Mr. Thibodeaux. Moreover, BB&T is listed as the lienholder,

a position that only affects its priority status as a lender, it does not affect

ownership, as Kaufman argues. These documents, combined with Mr.

Thibodeaux’s uncontroverted testimony regarding the purchase of the trailer and

his relationship to C&B Construction, led the trial court to conclude that Mr.

Thibodeaux met his burden of proving ownership of the trailer. We find no

manifest error in that determination.2

Defects in the Trailer

Kaufman argues that the trial court erred in granting rescission of the

sale of the trailer and that, at best, Mr. Thibodeaux is entitled to a reduction in the

purchase price. We disagree. Specifically, Kaufman asserts that because Mr.
2
In light of our finding that the trial court properly evaluated Mr. Thibodeaux’s testimony
and the corroborating documentary evidence supporting his testimony to make a credibility
determination, Kaufman’s argument regarding “best evidence” is inconsequential.
4

Thibodeaux continued to use the trailer despite the defect in its width, he accepted

the trailer with defects and is not entitled to rescission. We find that Kaufman’s

argument is without merit.

“The existence of redhibitory defects is a question of fact which will

not be disturbed in the absence of manifest error.” Jones, 92 So.3d at 1118.

“Moreover, a manufacturer is presumed to have knowledge of defects in the object

it produces.” Id. (citing La.Civ.Code art. 2545). If a purchaser buys a new vehicle

with defects, and those defects render the use of that vehicle inconvenient or

imperfect to the extent that the buyer would not have purchased the vehicle if he

had known of the defects, the buyer is entitled to a rescission of the sale instead of

merely a reduction in the purchase price. Id.

Here, Mr. Thibodeaux specifically ordered a trailer from Kaufman

with a deck width of 102 inches. Instead, Kaufman delivered a trailer with a deck

width of approximately ninety-nine inches. Mr. Thibodeaux notified Kaufman

immediately upon discovering the defect. Indeed, Mr. Thibodeaux testified that

the width of the trailer was pertinent to his business and that he ordered the trailer

with that particular width to meet a specific business need. Kaufman rebuked his

claims for a refund. Faced with no other option, Mr. Thibodeaux filed suit and

used the trailer as best he could. Thus, we find no error in the trial court’s

judgment rescinding the sale and ordering a return of the purchase price.

Attorney Fees on Appeal

Mr. Thibodeaux asserts that he is entitled to attorney fees for work

performed on this appeal. The issue of attorney fees is not properly before this

court as no answer to the appeal was timely filed pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art.

2133. Thus, we will not consider the argument.

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons articulated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial

court. Costs of this appeal are assessed against Kaufman Trailers, Inc.

AFFIRMED.

6