Kano Investments, LLC v. Kojis Construction, LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
P.O. Box 16577
Lake Charles LA 70616
(337) 433-9403

REHEARING ACTION: April 24, 2013

Docket Number: 12-01007 CW and 12-1269 CA

KANO INVESTMENTS, LLC
VERSUS
KOJIS CONSTRUCTION, LLC

Writ Application from Avoyelles Parish Case No. 2012-7687

BEFORE JUDGES:

Hon. Elizabeth A. Pickett
Hon. J. David Painter
Hon. Phyllis M. Keaty

As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the application

for rehearing filed by Kojis Construction, LLC has this day been

GRANTED. (Opinion on rehearing attached.)

As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the application

for rehearing filed by Kano Investments, LLC has this day been

DENIED.

cc: Jerold Edward Knoll, Jr.
Brian K. Thompson
Hon. Charles A. Riddle, III

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CW12-1007
consolidated with 12-1269

KANO INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.

VERSUS

KOJIS CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C.

************

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2012-7687-B
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BENNETT, JUDGE

ON REHEARING

************

J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, J. David Painter, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Jerold Edward Knoll
P.O. Box 426
Marksville, LA 71351
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT-APPELLEE:
Kano Investments, L.L.C.

Brian K. Thompson
2915 Jackson St.
Alexandria, LA 71301
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT-APPELLEE:
Kano Investments, L.L.C.

Charles A. Riddle
P.O. Box 608
Marksville, LA 71351
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT:
Kojis Construction, L.L.C.

PAINTER, Judge.

We grant the application of Defendant-Appellant, Kojis Construction, L.L.C.

solely as to the issue of estoppel. After reviewing the facts and the applicable law,

we find that payment of rent for three months did not act to estop the breach of

lease claim. The lease contract provides that the landlord’s failure to exercise its

rights under the lease promptly does not operate to forfeit such rights. Further,

[E]quitable estoppel applies only where a party has made false or
misleading representations of fact and the other party justifiably relied
on the representation. State v. Mitchell, 337 So.2d 1186, 1188
(La.1976). We must narrowly construe this argument, as “estoppel is
not favored in our law,” Id., and estoppel is a “doctrine of last resort.”
Howard Trucking Co., Inc. v. Stassi, 485 So.2d 915, 918 (La.1986).

Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC v. Penn-America Ins. Co., 12-1033, p. _

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/6/13), ___ So.3d ___, ___. The documents supporting the

motions for summary judgment do not support application of this doctrine.

Therefore, we affirm our original opinion and affirm the trial court’s grant of

summary judgment with regard to breach of lease.

AFFIRMED.

1