Court Opinion

ID: 9388597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 00:04:23.25931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.217515
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                             COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                               NO. 2022 CA 1170

                       SHEKINAH GLORY MINISTRIES

                                    VERSUS

                 ONE WAY DELIVERANCE MINISTRY, ET AL.

                                     Judgment Rendered:         APR 2 0 2023

                               Appealed from the
                           19th Judicial District Court
                    In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                               State of Louisiana
                               Docket No. 713160

                 The Honorable Trudy M. White, Judge Presiding

Lon E. Roberson                             Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                      Shekinah Glory Ministries

Brian D. Katz                               Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees,
New Orleans, Louisiana                      One Way Deliverance Ministries
                                            and Barbara Rogers

            BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., WOLFE, AND MILLER, JJ.

C) (
       41    1    QA-ML16
MILLER, J.

       The plaintiff/appellant, Shekinah Glory Ministries, appeals a judgment of the

Nineteenth Judicial District Court sustaining the peremptory exception of no cause

of action in favor of the defendant/ appellee, Barbara Rogers, in her individual

capacity,   and dismissing Barbara Rogers, in her individual capacity, from the

lawsuit. For the following reasons, we reverse.

                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       In 2020,   Shekinah Glory Ministries ("         Shekinah")   attempted to lease two

buildings and all related parking from One Way Deliverance Ministries ("                 One

Way"). Throughout the lease negotiations, Shekinah was represented by Debra

Eackles,    and One Way was represented by Barbara Rogers ("                 Rogers").    In

contemplation of the lease, Shekinah paid a total of $21,           500 to One Way which

included a deposit of $11, 500, and $ 10, 000 for the first month of rent. However,

Shekinah was prevented from taking possession of the property, and One Way

refused to return the $ 21, 500 to Shekinah.

       On November 10, 2021, Shekinah filed a petition for damages against One

Way,   Rogers,    Latter &     Blum,    Inc.,    and   Millicent   Van Norden.'   Shekinah

contended that it was One Way' s "              fault" that the lease was not finalized.

Specifically, Shekinah asserted that the property was not ready for occupancy on

the date agreed upon by the parties, the attempts to obtain an occupancy permit

failed due to incomplete electrical work, and movable property was not timely

removed.

       Rogers filed an exception of no cause of action on January 6, 2022.               She

contended that Shekinah did not allege any cause of action against her, other than

that she acted as an agent for One Way. Rogers asserted that the fact that she was

 Millicent Van Norden of Latter & Blum, Inc. was the broker of the lease.

                                                2
the agent for One Way during the lease negotiations did not attach liability to her

individually.

       On March 9, 2022, Shekinah filed a motion for leave to amend its petition

for damages, which was granted by the trial court on March 10, 2022. Shekinah' s

amended petition for damages contained new allegations against Rogers. Shekinah

contended that Rogers,    in her capacity as an agent of One Way,       and in her

individual capacity, committed fraud. Shekinah further argued that the deficiencies

noted in Rogers' s exception of no right of action were cured by the amended

petition for damages. In response, Rogers contended that the new allegations

contained in the amended petition did not convey any liability on Rogers,

individually, since she was a representative of One Way and there are no

allegations that she acted on her own behalf. She further alleged that Shekinah' s

allegations of fraud were not sufficient because they were not alleged with

particularity.

       At the hearing on the exception, the trial court found that Rogers met her

burden because Shekinah failed to allege factual details that support a claim of

liability against Rogers, in her individual capacity.   The trial court stated that

Shekinah' s amended petition was mostly conclusory statements with little factual

support.   On May 4,   2022,   the trial court signed a judgment sustaining the

exception of no cause of action in favor of Rogers, in her individual capacity, and

dismissing Rogers, in her individual capacity, from the lawsuit. It is from this

judgment that Shekinah appeals.

                          ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

       Shekinah contends the trial court erred in sustaining the exception of no

cause of action in favor of Rogers, in her individual capacity, and dismissing the

action against her and the trial court erred in not allowing Shekinah an opportunity

to file a second amended petition.

                                         3
                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

       In ruling on an exception of no cause of action,          the   trial court must

determine whether the law affords any relief to the claimant if he were to prove the

factual allegations in the petition and annexed documents at a trial. Adams v.

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 2004- 1296 ( La. App.       151 Cir. 9123105), 921

So. 2d 972, 975, writ denied, 2005- 2501 ( La. 4117106), 926 So. 2d 514. An

exception of no cause of action is triable solely on the face of the petition and any

annexed documents thereto. See La. C. C. P. art. 931; Dodson & Hooks, APLC v.

Louisiana Community Development Capital Fund, Inc. " Capfund,"          2019- 1516 ( La.

App.   1St Cir. 12130120), 318 So. 3d 939, 945. For purposes of the exception, the

well -pleaded facts in the petition and in any documents annexed to the petition

must be accepted as true. Dodson & Hooks, 318 So. 3d at 944; see La. C. C. P. arts.

853, 927 and 931.   The burden of demonstrating that no cause of action has been

stated is on the party raising the objection. Dodson &   Hooks, 318 So. 3d at 944.

       In reading a petition to determine whether a cause of action has been stated,

it must be interpreted, if possible, to maintain the cause of action instead of

dismissing the petition.   Adams, 921 So. 2d at 975- 76.       Any reasonable doubt

concerning the sufficiency of the petition must be resolved in favor of finding that

a cause of action has been stated. Id. at 976. The petition must set forth material

facts upon which the cause of action is based. La. C. C. P. art. 891( A); Lambert v.

Riverboat Gamin _ Enforcement Div.,     1996- 1856 ( La. App. 1 St   Cir. 12129197), 706

So. 2d 172, 175, writ denied, 1998- 0297 ( La. 3120198), 715 So. 2d 1221. The

correctness of conclusions of law is not conceded for the purposes of a ruling on an

exception of no cause of action. Christian Schools, Inc. v. Louisiana High School

Athletic Association, 2020- 0762 (   La. App.   Pt Cir. 5118122),    342 So. 3d 1068,

1075, writ denied, 2022- 01015 ( La. 10112122),     348 So. 3d 78. On appeal, the

                                          4
reviewing court conducts a de novo review of a trial court' s ruling sustaining an

exception of no cause of action, since the exception raises a question of law. Id.

                                           DISCUSSION

      Shekinah contends that the trial court erred in sustaining the exception of no

cause of action because it did not consider the facts stated in the amended petition.

In response, Rogers argues that she was acting as an agent for One Way when she

signed the lease on behalf of One Way, so Shekinah has no cause of action against

Rogers,   in her individual capacity.          We will consider the petition and amended

petition filed by Shekinah in conducting our de novo review. There are no annexed

documents to review.

      In its petition, Shekinah alleged that One Way is a nonprofit corporation and

that One Way appointed Rogers as its agent for service of process. The petition

further alleges that Rogers represented One Way in the lease negotiations.

Thereafter, in its amended petition, Shekinah alleged that Rogers, in her capacity

as an agent for One Way, and in her individual capacity, committed fraud by

utilizing the following deceitful practices:

       A) The premises at issue herein had known extensive electrical

            problems that the above referenced defendants failed to remedy
            prior    to    the    plaintiff,   SHEKINAH GLORY MINISTRIES
            attempted to take possession of said premises.

             a.     The     defendants     knew   or    should   have    known that the
                    electrical     problems     would    prevent   the    plaintiff   from
                    obtaining an occupancy permit which was a requirement of
                    fulfilling the lease.

       B)   Additionally, in the process of obtaining an insurance binder
            which was also a condition of the lease agreement, BARBARA
            ROGERS personally contacted the insurance agent asking him
            not to        issue   an insurance    binder to      SHEKINAH GLORY
            MINISTRIES.

       C)   Furthermore, the gym, which is part of the property to be leased,
            was full of furniture owned by BARBARA ROGERS which had
            not been removed by the time the lease was to commence. This
            prevented plaintiff from occupying the premises.

                                                  5
        D) The conduct of BARBARA ROGERS ...                       amounted to a scheme

             to keep all funds deposited by the plaintiff contending that the
              plaintiff breached the agreement to lease.

        E)    BARBARA            ROGERS       negotiated     with     the     plaintiffs   and

              operated     in    such   a   manner    that   the    management        of   the
              corporation suited her alter ego.

        F)    Therefore,   BARBARA ROGERS should be held personally
              liable by piercing the corporate veil.

        Initially, we note that the pleadings contain allegations regarding piercing

the corporate veil and the alter ego doctrine as though Rogers is a shareholder,

director, or officer of One Way. See Winn Fuel Service Inc. v. Booth, 45, 207 ( La.

App.   211 Cir. 4/ 14/ 10), 34 So. 3d 515, 519 ( stating that "[            p] iercing the corporate

veil applies to shareholders, directors,         and   officers.").   Corporations are distinct

legal entities, separate from the individuals who comprise them. See La. C. C. art.

24.   Generally, unless the directors or officers of a corporation purport to bind

themselves individually, they do not incur personal liability for corporate debts.

Terrebonne Concrete, LLC v. CEC Enterprises, LLC, 2011- 0072 ( La. App. 151 Cir.

8117111),    76 So. 3d 502, 508, writ denied, 2011- 2021 ( La. 11118/ 11),                 75 So. 3d

464. When officers and directors transact with third parties in the course and scope

of their employment, the law treats them as agents, limiting their personal liability.

M. Ha es &     Associates Realty Co.         L.L. C. v. Moliere, 2007- 891 (       La. App. 5"   Cir.

3/ 11/ 08), 982 So. 2d 173, 178.

       However, neither the petition nor the amended petition allege that Rogers is

a shareholder, director, or officer of One Way. They only allege that she is an

agent and an " apostle."        Since Rogers is not alleged to be a shareholder, director, or

officer, there is no reason to examine whether additional facts were alleged to state

a cause of action under corporation law sufficient to pierce the corporate veil.

Therefore, we must determine whether a cause of action has been stated against

                                                 31
Rogers, in her individual capacity, under any other theory. The cause of action

Shekinah has alleged is one for fraud.

       The pleadings, when accepted as true, establish that Rogers was One Way' s

agent. Agency is a contract by which a person, the principal, confers authority on

another person, the agent, to transact one or more affairs for the principal.' See La.

C. C. art. 2989. An agent who contracts in the name of the principal within the

limits of her authority does not bind herself personally for the performance of the

contract. See La. C. C. art. 3016. However, an agent becomes personally liable for

the contracts of her principal by guaranteeing them personally, by exceeding her

authority, and by failing to satisfy her disclosure duties. See La. C.C. arts. 3017- 19.

       It has long been recognized that one who contracts as an agent for another is

bound personally if it develops that the other party to the contract was misled or
                                                                                          1St
deceived. Wilson Sporting_Goods Co. v. Alwes, 21 So. 2d 102,           103 (   La, App.

Cir. 315145);   see La. C. C. art. 3013. The law of agency offers no protection from

tort liability when the agent commits the tort of fraud or the tort of intentional

interference with a contract. See Alvis v. CIT Group Equipment Financing, Inc.,

2003- 1364 ( La. App.    Yd Cir. 313104),   867 So, 2d 102, 104. Nothing in agency law

says that principals have the power to immunize their agents against tort liability

for conduct that would otherwise be considered tortious, merely by authorizing it.

8 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Business Organizations § 33: 10 ( citing 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc.

v. Spurnm 538 So. 2d 228, 234 ( La. 1989)).

       Fraud is a misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with the

intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a loss or

inconvenience to the other. La. C.C. art. 1953. Fraud may also result from silence

or inaction. Id. In order to find fraud from silence or suppression of the truth, there

must exist a duty to speak or disclose information. Boncosky Services,             Inc. y.

 Under Louisiana law mandate is synonymous with agency and mandatary with agent. La. Frac.
Employment Law, Agents/ mandataries/ representatives, § 1: 6.

                                               7
Lampo, 1998- 2239 (      La. App.    1St Cir. 1115199), 751 So. 2d 278, 287, writ denied,

2000- 0322 ( La. 3/ 24/ 00), 758 So. 2d 798. Mere silence or inaction without

fraudulent intent does not constitute fraud. Fraudulent intent, or the intent to

deceive, is a necessary and inherent element of fraud. See Whitehead v. American

Coachworks, Inc., 2002- 0027 (       La. App. 1St Cir. 12/ 20/ 02), 837 So. 2d 678, 682.

Fraud cannot be predicated upon mistake or negligence, no matter how gross.

                                                                                             1St
Schilling v. Bernhard Bros. Mechanical Contractors LLC, 2012- 2105 ( La. App.

Cir. 9/ 13/ 13), 186 So. 3d 658, 665, writ denied, 2013- 2378 ( La. 1216113), 129 So.

3d 537.

       Shekinah alleges that Rogers committed fraud by failing to remedy electrical

problems before Shekinah attempted to take possession of the lease; taking its

money while knowing that the electrical problems would prevent Shekinah from

obtaining an occupancy permit; contacting the insurance agent and asking him not

to issue an insurance binder to Shekinah so that it could not gain occupancy;

failing to remove furniture from the property in a timely manner; and engaging in

conduct which amounted to a scheme to keep all funds deposited by Shekinah.

Applying the above principals to the petition and amended petition, we find the

plaintiff pleaded fraud as to Rogers personally with sufficient particularity to state

a cause of action. Thus, we find that the trial court erred in sustaining the exception

of no cause of action in favor of Rogers, in her individual capacity, and dismissing

Rogers, in her individual capacity, from the lawsuit.'

                                       CONCLUSION

       The May 4, 2022 judgment sustaining the peremptory exception of no cause

of action in favor of Barbara Rogers, in her individual capacity, and dismissing

3 Since we have determined that the trial court erred in sustaining the exception of no cause of
action in favor of Rogers, in her individual capacity, and dismissing Rogers, in her individual
capacity, from the lawsuit, we pretennit discussion of the second assignment of error regarding
an opportunity to file a second amending petition.

                                                L
Barbara Rogers,   in her individual capacity, is reversed. Costs of this appeal are

assessed to Barbara Rogers, in her individual capacity.

      REVERSED,