JAMES LEWIS III v. THIBODEAUX PROPERTY GROUP LLC (2025)

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff, James Lewis, III, entered into a bond for deed contract with Defendant, Thibodeaux Property Group, LLC, for certain property located in Sulphur, Louisiana. The bond for deed identified the property as “1818 Marsalise Drive, Sulphur, LA 70665 parcel number 091362326A.” The total price of the property was to be $45,000.00, of which a $5,000.00 down payment was paid on the day of the signing of the bond for deed. The remaining $40,000.00 was to be financed, bearing an annual interest rate of 8.75%, and to be paid in monthly installments of approximately $567.97, which included amounts for property taxes and interest.

Mr. Lewis maintains that shortly after signing the bond for deed, he attempted to have electricity connected to the property. He was informed that the address, “1818 Marsalise Drive,” was already in service. He discovered that address was actually a home next door to the property he had seemingly entered into the bond for deed contract with Defendant. He was told the correct address for the property Mr. Lewis believed he had purchased was 1844 Marsalise Drive, Sulphur, LA 70665. Mr. Lewis stated he immediately attempted to contact Defendant, Thibodeaux Property Group, and in particular, its owner, David Thibodeaux, to address the situation. Mr. Lewis maintained he was “assured that, you know, [Defendant would] look into it.” He was also assured that “it was [Defendant's] property” that was purchased. Mr. Lewis continued to make payments on the home and also made significant improvements to the home (roofing work and interior repairs, which were valued at approximately $25,000). According to Mr. Lewis, he made these improvements because he was assured the bond for deed would be corrected to properly identify the property purchased.

Mr. Lewis stated he made repeated attempts to contact Defendant concerning the bond for deed address discrepancy. He was unable to get through to talk specifically to Mr. Thibodeaux, and said he never heard back from him. He became concerned over the situation and made the decision to not make further payments until the situation was resolved, and he was sure he was paying for property actually owned by Defendant. He never heard from anyone associated with Defendant until after he stopped making payments; only then did Defendant contact him and demanded the full remaining principal balance or that Mr. Lewis sign the property back to Defendant.

Defendant alleged that Mr. Lewis fell behind on his monthly payments and was given the 45-day notice provided for in the bond for deed and set forth in La.R.S. 9:2941. Thus, Defendant maintained Mr. Lewis was required to either vacate the property or pay the principal of $39,366.47, plus interest of $1419.50. On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff was sent a Notice of Acceleration demanding the full balance owed on the property to be paid within 45 days. Mr. Lewis maintains that at this point the error with the property's address was still not corrected. Defendant then filed an Affidavit to Cancel the bond for deed to rescind Mr. Lewis’ right to occupy the property.

On September 21, 2021, Defendant canceled and accelerated the bond for deed. Mr. Lewis countered that the contract between him and Defendant was void because the address to the property was not correct and that Defendant had no legal right to transfer or carry a property which it did not own. Defendant eventually executed and filed the very Act of Correction that Mr. Lewis had been requesting for months. However, this correction only occurred after Defendant canceled the bond for deed and terminated the contract.

In response, Mr. Lewis brought claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Defendant. A bench trial was held wherein both sides presented testimony and evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court gave oral reasons for its ruling:

So the Court will go back to the beginning and discuss things that are not in dispute. There was, in fact, a contract between Mr. James Lewis III and Thibodeaux Property Group, LLC, styled as a bond for deed, or as we – as Mr. Tynes says, commonly a buy-sell agreement. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Lewis -- well before I get there – what the Court finds is there was a blatant lack of communication in this particular case, and this could have been solved really easily. I will say, Mr. Thibodeaux, you corrected it two years later. I think you – had we gotten that done I don't think we would have been in this courtroom if we had done that in January of ‘21.

I do find Mr. Lewis to be in good faith, and I want to state why I believe that. I don't believe any person would take $5,000 of their own personal funds, bring it to you, give you an additional three months of mortgage payments, and spend 25,800 bucks with two contractors, putting it into a piece of property they don't own if they're not in good faith and wouldn't intend to own it. So I do find that Mr. Lewis is in good faith.

However, I would agree with Mr. Tynes [counsel for Defendant]. Had I been your attorney, I would have told you to keep making your payments too. And so that – for – one of the reasons you – you're not going to get the whole enchilada here today, because I would have – I know you didn't like what you were hearing and there are circumstances where people have paid for a property and then they don't own it. You have somebody else coming into court years down the line saying, “Man, you paid $50,000 for a piece of property that belong[s] to me.” So I can understand those fears.

But the Court does find in favor of the plaintiff. I find that this could have easily been solved by an act of correction shortly after it was brought to Mr. Thibodeaux's attention. However, I'm not going to reinstate the bond for deed as requested by the plaintiff both in argument and in pleading. I will, however, award damages. And the Court will award damages as follows – so I should say I will rule for the Plaintiff in part and for the Defendant in part.

The three months or mortgages and late fees will not be returned to the Plaintiff. Likewise – the down payment will not be returned to the plaintiff.

Mr. Thibodeaux, be the order of the Court, you will pay the entirety of Mr. Breaux's invoice [for interior construction performed on the property] of $12,300 plus interest from the [date of] judicial demand. You will also pay the $13,500 that was paid to Rick Guillory and his construction company [for roofing work performed on the property]․ That amount will be reimbursed in full. The Court would order that, with interest from the date of judicial demand. Also, it would be the order [of] the Court that Thibodeaux Properties Group pay the court cost of these proceedings.

And one other observation of the Court that I find – the Court is a little – has toyed a little bit on the request for mental anguish. I understand, and in listening to the testimony, that – most compelling through Ms. Ana Lewis, that Ms. Lewis had been on the road. He had been working at plants and was trying to get back home and wanted to use this rental property as a source of income for his family and did ultimately lose almost $30,000. That's no small amount of change for working families. And by my classification, they are a working family. Ms. Lewis is currently or was, at that time, in bankruptcy, with not very much income coming into their home. There was testimony of a tender-aged child. I would presume they have a home in which they live that would have needed to be maintained, which would mostly have been done by Mr. Lewis, along with their daily needs. So I do find in favor of Mr. Lewis that there is, in fact, mental anguish and would award damages in the amount of $10,000 with interest from the date of judicial demand.

So the total of the Court's ruling would be – I will – each party will bear their own attorney's fees. The Court will not be awarding attorney's fees in this matter. So [it will] be the ruling of the Court that – in favor of Mr. Lewis. Each of the two invoices with the interests, court cost, and mental anguish of $10,000.

A judgment in accordance with the trial court's ruling was signed on April 22, 2024. On June 17, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for New Trial asserting the trial court's evidence was contrary to the law and evidence. After a hearing, the motion for new trial was denied. This appeal followed, wherein Defendant asserts four assignments of error:

1. The trial judge failed to correctly interpret the bond for deed defined by La.R.S. 9:2941 as a “contract to sell,” rather than a final sale, and only after payment does the seller agree to deliver title to the buyer, making any error easily correctable at that time;

2. The trial judge failed to apply the defense and doctrine of mitigation of loss to the Plaintiff;

3. The trial judge awarded $10,000 for mental anguish when there was no cause of action to justify that where a simple error was easily corrected at the actual point “title to the buyer” was actually to be delivered, or if preferable the Plaintiff was entitled to have a Notarial Act of Correction signed and filed in advance;

4. The trial judge failed to hold that the legal description was so easily corrected and therefore the bond for deed was enforceable.

ANALYSIS

Trial Court's Interpretation of the Bond for Deed Contract.

In its first assignment of error, Defendant argues the trial judge did not correctly interpret the bond for deed as defined by La.R.S. 9:2941 and the jurisprudence.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2941 sets forth that “[a] bond for deed is a contract to sell real property, in which the purchase price is to be paid by the buyer to the seller in installments and in which the seller after payment of a stipulated sum agrees to deliver title to the buyer.” When a buyer defaults on a bond for deed contract by failing to pay the installments as they come due and the non-payment continues for 45 days after notice of default, the seller may cancel the contract as provided in La.R.S. 9:2945. Regua v. Saucier, 13-832 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/20/13), 129 So.3d 798, writ denied, 13-2976 (La. 2/28/14), 134 So.3d 1179

The court in Regua, 129 So.3d at 800, discussed the subsequent effects when a bond for deed contract is canceled:

[A]ppropriate adjustments must be made in failed bond for deed contracts. The vendor in a bond for deed contract is not entitled to retain all monies paid by the purchaser because such a [sic] would be inequitable, unreasonable and an illegal attempt to recover punitive damages.

In Regua, as here, the purchaser entered into a bond for deed contract for a duplex with a purchase price of $40,000.00 and a down payment of $5,000.00. The bond for deed agreement provided that if the purchaser defaulted on the monthly payments, the sellers must give written notice of the default to the purchaser. The purchaser would have 45 days to pay the amount due. If not paid, the purchaser was to quit and surrender the premises upon demand. Regua, the purchaser, failed to make several monthly payments. Written notice of default was sent by the sellers to Regua, who attempted to pay $1,200.00 toward the arrearage of $2,254.29. The sellers rejected the partial payment and moved forward on the default. The sellers recorded an affidavit of cancellation of the bond for deed. The sellers then changed the locks on the property, preventing Regua from entering and recovering her personal property. Regua filed a suit against the sellers alleging wrongful eviction, conversion of property, breach of contract, fraud, reimbursement for improvements made to the property, and injunctive relief. Following a bench trial, the court awarded Regua $86,203.36, which included her original down payment, the monthly installments paid, the costs incurred in the renovation, and the property taxes paid by Regua. The court denied Regua's claims for conversion and for wrongful eviction based on lack of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding “[t]o not award Regua reimbursement for the down payment, monthly payments, taxes and cost of repairs would be inequitable, unreasonable and an illegal award of punitive damages to the [sellers].” Id. at 801.

The decision in Regua supports the trial court's decision in this case on its interpretation of the bond for deed. As Mr. Lewis notes, if anything, Regua indicates he could have received more from the trial court than he did. The trial court did not award rescission of the down payment or reimbursement of the monthly payments made, as the court made in Regua.

It appears Defendant's primary argument is that Mr. Lewis should have continued to make payments on the bond for deed until its completion despite the clear error in the contract as to what actual property was being conveyed. Defendant had numerous opportunities to attempt to work with Plaintiff on this issue, but rather than discussing the situation with Plaintiff, offered only silence.

The award of damages by the trial court is well within its discretion, and the judgment is in accordance with other jurisprudence on bond for deed cases. The law is clear that the seller in a bond for deed contract is not entitled to retain all monies paid by the purchaser. Regua, 129 So.3d 798; Berthelot v. Le Investment, L.L.C., 02-2054 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/21/04), 866 So.2d 877; Montz v. Theard, 01-768 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/27/02), 818 So.2d 181. This assignment of error is without merit.

Failure to Mitigate and Correct the Legal Description.

Defendant's second and fourth assignments of error are interrelated and concern the alleged failure on Mr. Lewis’ part to mitigate his damages and to unilaterally correct the erroneous legal description of the property. Thus, we will address these assignments together.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in not considering Mr. Lewis’ “failure” to unilaterally change the erroneous address in the bond for deed contract, arguing this simple action would have mitigated the damages Mr. Lewis incurred. However, this argument is based on the erroneous belief that Mr. Lewis could have unilaterally changed the property description on the bond for deed. The trial court at the hearing noted a bond for deed contract is bilateral and requires both parties to the contract to act to make a change, and thus a bond for deed is a “contract that you can't unilaterally change.” Therefore, the alleged mitigation Defendant contends Mr. Lewis should have taken was not possible. Further, the record clearly reflects Defendant refused to cooperate and simply ignored Mr. Lewis’ repeated requests to correct the erroneous property description in the bond for deed contract. This refusal by Defendant led the trial court to note that “this [situation] could easily have been solved by an act of correction shortly after it was brought to Mr. Thibodeaux's attention.” Thus, the failure to act in this case was the fault of Defendant. These assignments of error are without merit.

Award of Damages for Mental Anguish.

In his third listed assignment of error, Defendant contends the trial court erred in awarding $10,000.00 in damages for Mr. Lewis’ mental anguish. Although this is listed by Defendant as an assignment of error, there is little discussion of this issue and no jurisprudential or statutory authority is cited in support of the assertion that the trial court erred in awarding damages for mental anguish. The only reference to this particular assignment of error in Defendant's brief simply states “[t]he various claims for attorney fees, mental anguish, injunctive relief, etc., are not supported with factual allegations that are not ambiguous and confusing.” The trial court specifically addressed the request for mental anguish damages, stating its reasoning for awarding such damages in this case:

I understand, and in listening to the testimony, that – most compelling through Ms. Ana Lewis, that Ms. Lewis had been on the road. He had been working at plants and was trying to get back home and wanted to use this rental property as a source of income for his family and did ultimately lose almost $30,000. That's no small amount of change for working families. And by my classification, they are a working family. Ms. Lewis is currently or was, at that time, in bankruptcy, with not very much income coming into their home. There was testimony of a tender-aged child. I would presume they have a home in which they live that would have needed to be maintained, which would mostly have been done by Mr. Lewis, along with their daily needs. So I do find in favor of Mr. Lewis that there is, in fact, mental anguish and would award damages in the amount of $10,000 with interest from the date of judicial demand.

We find no error in the trial court's award of damages for mental anguish in this case. In his petition for damages, Mr. Lewis specifically pled that he suffered extensive damages as a result of the actions of Defendant, which included damages for mental anguish. As set forth earlier, Defendant has cited no authority to support a position that mental anguish damages are prohibited as an element of damages in this case. There is no merit to this assignment of error.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against Defendant-Appellant, Thibodeaux Property Group, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

LEDRICKA J. THIERRY JUDGE