Reverand Franklin Fondel, Sr. v. Raymond Fondel, Jr. Indv. and as Administrator of the Succession of Raymond M. Fondel,sr.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

20-221

REVEREND FRANKLIN FONDEL, SR.

VERSUS

RAYMOND FONDEL, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SUCCESSION OF
RAYMOND FONDEL, SR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2016-5419
HONORABLE G. MICHAEL CANADAY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Van H. Kyzar, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Charles G.
Fitzgerald, Judges.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED;
PERMANENT INJUNCTION REVERSED AND DISSOLVED.

Kenneth M. Wright
203 West Clarence Street
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
(337) 439-6930
Counsel for Respondants/Appellants:
Franklin Fondel, Sr.
Franklin Fondel, Jr.

Robert J. Williams
814 West McNeese Street, Suite 217
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70605
(337) 562-1116
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee:
Kevin Fondel

J. Wade Smith
Post Office Box 1706
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 436-8424
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee:
Raymond Fondel, Jr.

David Marcantel
302 East Nezpique
Jennings, Louisiana 70546
(337) 824-7380
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee:
Succession of Raymond Fondel, Sr.

Shane K. Hinch
Post Office Box 4210-70606
Lake Charles, Louisiana
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee:
Fondel Memorial Chapel, Inc.

FITZGERALD, Judge.

Appellants, Franklin Fondel Sr. (Franklin Sr.) and Franklin Fondel Jr.

(Franklin Jr.), seek review of the trial court’s declaratory judgment in favor of Kevin

Fondel (Kevin) and the Succession of Raymond Fondel Sr. (Succession of Raymond

Sr.), declaring null and void the issuance of 4,000 shares of stock in Fondel

Memorial Chapel, Inc. (FMC) to Franklin Jr. Appellants also seek review of the trial

court’s issuance of a permanent injunction against Franklin Jr., enjoining him from

voting shares of stock in FMC.

For the reasons below, the trial court’s declaratory judgment is affirmed;

however, the judgment issuing the permanent injunction is reversed and dissolved.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

FMC is a Louisiana business corporation domiciled in Lake Charles,

Louisiana. The corporation does business as a funeral home, and it has serviced

Southwest Louisiana for many decades. Since its incorporation in 1966, FMC has

been operated by various members of the Fondel extended family, with ownership

equally distributed over three main branches of the Fondel family.

Before June 12, 2018, the ownership of FMC was represented by 1,000 shares

of stock. The shareholders and their representative ownership shares were divided

as follows: Appellant Franklin Sr., 333 shares; Appellee Kevin, 333 shares; and

Appellee Succession of Raymond Sr., 334 shares.

However, on June 12, 2018, the then-elected board of directors of FMC held

a meeting, during which the board resolved to issue 4,000 previously authorized but

unissued shares to Franklin Jr. According to the minutes of this meeting, “Franklin

Fondel, Jr. has been serving as President of the corporation without any salary since

July of 2016, . . . [and] the corporation has agreed to issue shares authorized, but not

issued to Franklin Fondel, Jr., equal to the unpaid compensation . . . .”

In response, on March 15, 2019, Kevin and the Succession of Raymond Sr.

(acting through an administrator) filed a petition for injunctive relief against FMC,

Franklin Sr., and Franklin Jr. Thereafter, on July 16, 2019, the same plaintiffs filed

against the same defendants a petition for declaratory judgment. Both actions were

filed by plaintiffs in their capacity as derivative shareholders. While the action for

injunctive relief sought to prevent Franklin Jr. from voting the 4,000 shares of FMC

stock, the declaratory action sought to rescind the stock transaction as null and void.

Trial was held on September 24, 2019. After taking the matter under

advisement, the trial court rendered a final Judgment declaring the transfer by FMC

of 4,000 shares of stock to Franklin Jr. null and void. The trial court’s Judgment

was signed on October 4, 2019. Written Reasons were also issued and signed on

October 4, 2019. Several weeks later, on October 31, 2019, the trial court rendered

judgment issuing a permanent injunction against Franklin Jr., enjoining him from

voting shares of stock in FMC. It is from these two judgments that Franklin Sr. and

Franklin Jr. now appeal. 1

On appeal, Franklin Sr. and Franklin Jr. assert the following assignments of

error:

I. The District Court erred in invalidating the transfer of stock by
the Board of Directors of Fondel Memorial Chapel, Inc. to
Franklin Fondel, Jr.

II. The District Court erred in granting a permanent injunction
against Franklin Fondel, Jr. from voting any of the shares he
acquired from Fondel Memorial Chapel, Inc.

In July 2020, FMC filed with this court a motion to realign parties. The
1

motion alleged that since the order of appeal was signed, a new board of directors
had been elected for FMC. The motion sought permission from this court to allow
FMC to file a brief as an appellee in order to reflect a changed legal position of this
newly elected board. The order that accompanied the motion was signed by this
court on July 6, 2020.
2

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The function of a declaratory judgment is to establish the rights of the parties

or to express the court’s opinion on a question of law without ordering any relief.

MAPP Constr., LLC v. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co., 13-1074 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/14),

143 So.3d 520. “Trial courts are vested with wide discretion in deciding whether to

grant or refuse declaratory relief.” In re Interment of LoCicero, 05-1051, p. 4

(La.App. 4 Cir. 5/31/06), 933 So.2d 883, 886. Here, however, Appellants do not

contend that the trial court erred in rendering a declaratory judgment. Instead, they

contend that the trial court erred in invalidating the transfer of FMC stock to Franklin

Jr.

While a trial court’s determination about whether to issue a declaratory

judgment is subject to the abuse of discretion standard, the judgment itself is still

subject to the appropriate standard of review, i.e., questions of law are reviewed de

novo and questions of fact are subject to the manifest error standard of review. See

Ranger Ins. Co. v. Shop Rite, Inc., 05-452 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/17/06), 921 So.2d 1040.

Additionally, a trial court’s determination about whether to issue a permanent

injunction is subject to the manifest error standard of review. Mary Moe, L.L.C. v.

La. Bd. of Ethics, 03-2220 (La. 4/14/04), 875 So.2d 22. The issuance of a permanent

injunction occurs after a trial on the merits and the burden of proof is a

preponderance of the evidence. Id. A preliminary injunction may be issued on a

prima facia showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. The parties may agree

to consolidate trial on the merits of a permanent injunction with the judgment issuing

a preliminary injunction. Id.

3

DISCUSSION

I. First Assignment of Error

In their first assignment of error, Franklin Sr. and Franklin Jr. contend the trial

court erred in invalidating the transfer of stock from FMC to Franklin Jr. The trial

court concluded that the issuance of the 4,000 shares of FMC stock to Franklin Jr.

was null and void because it violated the Louisiana Business Corporation Act.

Specifically, the trial court determined that the statutory requirements of La.R.S.

12:1-621(F) were not satisfied. On appeal, Franklin Sr. and Franklin Jr. argue that

the requirements of La.R.S. 12:1-621(F) do not apply to the transaction at issue.

The issue before us concerns the statutory interpretation of La.R.S. 12:1-621.

This is a question of law, requiring this court to employ the de novo standard of

review. Silver Dollar Liquor, Inc. v. Red River Parish Police Jury, 10-2776 (La.

9/7/11), 74 So.3d 641.

“The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the

statute itself.” M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371, p. 13 (La. 7/1/08),

998 So.2d 16, 27. “When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does

not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further

interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.” La.Civ.Code

art. 9. “The words of a law must be given their generally prevailing meaning.”

La.Civ.Code art. 11. “The plain meaning of the legislation should be conclusive.”

Borel v. Young, 07-419, p. 10 (La. 11/27/07), 989 So.2d 42, 50.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 12:1-621 states, in pertinent part:

F. (1) An issuance of shares or other securities convertible into or
rights exercisable for shares, in a transaction or a series of integrated
transactions, requires approval of the shareholders, at a meeting at
which a quorum consisting of at least a majority of the votes entitled to
be cast on the matter exists, if both of the following conditions are
satisfied:

4

(a) The shares, other securities, or rights are issued for
consideration other than cash or cash equivalents.

(b) The voting power of shares that are issued and issuable as a
result of the transaction or series of integrated transactions will
comprise more than twenty percent of the voting power of the
shares of the corporation that were outstanding immediately
before the transaction.

Before going further, it is important to point out that Appellants do not dispute

any of the factual findings of the trial court. To this end, the trial court found that

no shareholders were present at the June 12, 2018 meeting, during which 4,000

shares of FMC stock were issued to Franklin Jr.; that the shares of stock were issued

to Franklin Jr. as compensation for services (labor) performed by him in the past;

and that the issuance of the 4,000 shares of FMC stock comprised more than twenty

percent of the voting power of the voting shares that were outstanding immediately

before the transaction. Indeed, prior to the subject transaction, only 1,000 shares of

FMC stock had been issued. The transaction at issue resulted in a four-hundred

percent increase in outstanding company shares.

Based on the above findings of fact, the trial court concluded that “[a]s none

of those present at the meeting were shareholders of the corporation, a legal issuance

of shares could not take place under La.R.S. 12:1-621(F) where the meeting was one

in which a less than a majority of the votes entitled to be cast were present.”

Appellants, Franklin Sr. and Franklin Jr., contend that compliance with

La.R.S. 12:1-621(F) was not necessary because Franklin Jr.’s unpaid personal labor

to FMC constitutes a cash equivalent under La.R.S. 12:1-621(F)(1)(a). Because the

term “cash equivalents” is not defined within the above statute, Appellants argue

that the term should be construed to include services rendered. The argument is that

“cash equivalents” should not be limited to assets readily convertible to cash, such

as stocks, bonds, or negotiable instruments. Franklin Jr.’s services (labor) rendered

5

to FMC, they argue, is a cash equivalent. The trial court did not agree with this

argument, and neither do we.

Franklin Sr. and Franklin Jr. fail to offer a single source of law to support their

argument. On the other hand, Appellees point to State v. Dean, 99-475, p. 6 (La.App.

3 Cir. 11/3/99), 748 So.2d 57, 60, writ denied, 99-3413 (La. 5/26/00), 762 So.2d

1101, wherein another panel of this court determined that the phrase “other cash

equivalents” in La.R.S. 27:71(4) presumes checks or some other form of negotiable

instrument. Louisiana Revised Statutes 27:71 governs the application requirements

for gaming licenses under the Louisiana Riverboat Economic Development and

Gaming Control Act.

Appellees next point to the Louisiana Business and Industrial Development

Company Act, specifically La.R.S. 51:2388(4), which states: “Cash equivalent shall

include cash, time certificates of deposit, or readily marketable securities issued by

an agency of the United States government or the State of Louisiana or any of its

political subdivisions.” Finally, Appellees cite Louisiana Captive Insurers Law,

specifically La.R.S. 22:550.2(5), which defines “‘[c]ash equivalents’” as “any short-

term, highly liquid investments that are both (a) readily convertible to known

amounts of cash, and (b) so near their maturity that they present insignificant risk of

changes in value due to changes in interest rates.”

In determining the common and approved usage of an undefined word in a

statute, dictionaries are also a valuable source. Perdu v. Cruse, 09-1446 (La.App. 3

Cir. 6/2/10), 38 So.3d 1235. “Cash equivalent” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary

as a “short-term security that is liquid enough to be considered equivalent to cash.”

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). This definition is consistent with State v.

Dean and the previously discussed statutes.

6

Accordingly, we hold that “cash equivalents” as used in La.R.S. 12:1-

621(F)(1)(a) does not include personal services rendered. The trial court correctly

interpreted and applied La.R.S. 12:1-621 to the record evidence. We affirm the trial

court’s judgment in declaring the stock transaction null and void. Appellants’ first

assignment of error is without merit. 2

II. Second Assignment of Error

In their second assignment of error, Franklin Sr. and Franklin Jr. contend that

the trial court erred in granting a permanent injunction against Franklin Jr., enjoining

him from voting the shares of stock he acquired in FMC. The issue for our review

is whether the trial court manifestly erred in issuing the permanent injunction.

The action for an injunction is available to prevent “irreparable injury, loss,

or damage” that would otherwise result. La.Code Civ.P. art. 3601(A). “A permanent

injunction is an extraordinary remedy appropriately ordered only to prevent damage

that is likely to occur in the future rather than to punish for past damage. Thus, no

injunction may be issued when the situation sought to be enjoined has already been

remedied.” Freyou v. Iberia Par. Sch. Bd., 94-1371, p.5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/3/95), 657

So.2d 161, 164 (citations omitted).

In this case, on October 31, 2019, the trial court signed an Order of Permanent

Injunction, stating therein as follows:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Permanent Injunction is
hereby issued to the Defendant, FRANKLIN FONDEL, JR., enjoining
and restraining him from voting any of the 4000 shares of stock at issue
or acting upon any super-majority claimed to flow from the alleged
stock transfer to FRANKLIN FONDEL, JR. of 4000 shares on June 12,
2018, and further enjoining and restraining him and anyone in concert
with him from issuing, transferring, selling or in any way alienating any
part of the 4000 shares of stock in Fondel Memorial Chapel, Inc.
purportedly transferred to FRANKLIN FONDEL, JR. on June 12, 2018.

2
In light of our holding that the stock transaction is null and void as it is
contrary to La.R.S. 12:1-621, there is no need for us to address any of Appellants’
other arguments regarding the first assignment of error.
7

The purpose of the injunction was to prevent Franklin Jr. from voting the

disputed shares of stock. However, this situation was remedied by the trial court’s

declaratory judgment. In declaring the stock transaction null and void, the trial court

reestablished ownership of FMC as follows: Franklin Sr., 333 shares; Kevin, 333

shares; and Succession of Raymond Sr., 334 shares. Franklin Jr. is not the registered

owner of the subject 4,000 shares of FMC stock. The permanent injunction serves

no purpose.

Accordingly, we find that the trial court manifestly erred in issuing the

permanent injunction against Franklin Jr. The trial court’s Order for Permanent

Injunction is reversed, and the injunction is hereby dissolved.

DECREE

The trial court’s declaratory Judgment of October 4, 2019, is affirmed. The

trial court’s Order for Permanent Injunction of October 31, 2019, is reversed and the

injunction is hereby dissolved. All costs associated with this appeal are assessed

equally between Appellants (Franklin Fondel Sr. and Franklin Fondel Jr.) and

Appellees (Kevin Fondel, Raymond Fondel Jr., David Marcantel, as Administrator

of the Succession of Raymond Fondel Sr., and Fondel Memorial Chapel, Inc.).

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
PERMANENT INJUNCTION REVERSED AND DISSOLVED.

8