Case Name: Cortez Burns ARMOUR, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. SHONGALOO LODGE NO. 352 FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, Defendants-Appellants-Relators
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1977-01-24
Citations: 342 So. 2d 600
Docket Number: No. 58059
Parties: Cortez Burns ARMOUR, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. SHONGALOO LODGE NO. 352 FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, Defendants-Appellants-Relators.
Judges: SUMMERS, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 342
Pages: 600–604

Head Matter:
Cortez Burns ARMOUR, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent, v. SHONGALOO LODGE NO. 352 FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, Defendants-Appellants-Relators.
No. 58059.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 24, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1977.
Leon M. Pliner, Shreveport, A. N. Yian-nopoulos, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for defendants-appellants-relators.
John B. Benton, Jr., Kitchens, Benton & Kitchens, Minden, for plaintiff-appellee-re-spondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Cortez Burns Armour, brought suit against the Shongaloo Lodge to have declared null and void the lease under which the lodge occupied a meeting hall. The defendant lodge reconvened and demanded specific performance of the lessor's obligation to maintain the foundation of the lodge hall. The trial court found the lease null in that no price was contained and rejected the lodge's demand for specific performance. The court of appeal affirmed. 330 So.2d 341 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1976).
We granted certiorari, 333 So. 245 (La. 1976), to review the judgment of the lower court.
A majority of the court is of the opinion that the agreement confected by the parties is a valid contract. We have considered the arguments made, including lack of serious consideration, prescription against the action in nullity, and the classification of the contract as a loan for use. We have also considered the applicability of the theory of imprevisión, the judicial revision of contracts. However, a majority of the court is unable to reach agreement upon which ground to uphold the validity of the contract.
Lessor's obligation to support the foundation
Under the agreement, the owner of the premises is bound to keep the foundation of the building in good repair as to support the second floor. It is argued by plaintiff that it would cost in excess of $18,500 to put the first story in good repair. An examination of the record reveals that the estimate presented at trial is actually an estimate as to the cost of putting the first story in "first class shape."
Under the contract, the plaintiff is not obligated to maintain the first floor in "first class shape", but is simply obligated to maintain support for the second story or lodge hall. The evidence before the trial court provides an insufficient basis upon which to make an award to accomplish this end.
The case must therefore be remanded to the trial court for it to receive evidence and make a determination of this award.
In the remand, the following principle may be availed of by the parties: The real obligation to furnish the support for the second floor of the building established by the contract, Civil Code Article 2015, may be satisfied by the obligor (the owner of the premises) abandoning the building and the land under it to the obligee (the defendant) under the contract, Civil Code Article 2012.
Decree
Accordingly, the judgments of the court of appeal and the district court are reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for consideration of defendant's reconventional demand, not inconsistent with the views expressed herein. All costs of these proceedings to be taxed upon final disposition of these proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SUMMERS, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.