HALLOWED GROUNDS LLC v. JAMES AULTMAN AIA (2026)

The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the appellee, James Aultman, AIA, (“Aultman”) and against, appellant, Hallowed Grounds, LLC (“Hallowed Grounds” or “Owner”). Hallowed Grounds appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On July 9, 2021, Hallowed Grounds, executed a standard lump sum contract (“the Contract”) with Spartan Building Corporation (“Spartan” or “Contractor”) to construct and build a yoga studio and coffee shop (“the Project”).¹ The correspondence between Hallowed Grounds and Spartan identified “James R. Aultman, AIA” as the architect for the Project; however, Aultman is not identified in the Contract as the project architect. Aultman was not involved in the preparation or negotiation of the Contract, and did not sign the Contract. The Contract states, in pertinent part:

Section 4.1.1 Architect is the person lawfully licensed to practice Architecture or an entity lawfully practicing Architecture identified as such in the Agreement․

* * *

Section 4.1.3 If the employment of Architect is terminated, the Owner shall employ a new Architect as set forth in the Contract Documents against whom the Contractor has no reasonable objection and whose status under the Contract Documents shall be that of the former Architect.

* * *

Section 4.2.1 Architect will provide administration of the Contract as described in the Contract Documents, and will be an Owner's representative (1) during construction, (2) until final payment is due and (3) with the Owner's concurrence, from time to time during the one-year period for correction of Work described in Section 12.2. Architect will have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in the Contract Documents, unless otherwise modified in writing in accordance with other provisions of the Contract.

***

Section 4.2.8 Architect will prepare Change Orders and Construction Change Directives, and may authorize minor changes in the Work as provided.

On August 22, 2022, prior to the commencement of construction and prior to the permits being obtained, Spartan provided Hallowed Grounds with a proposed Change Order seeking a $575,526 increase and forty-five (45) days of additional time due to pandemic-related reasons. Aultman signed the Change Order.

On August 31, 2022, Hallowed Grounds sent a letter to Aultman advising that it had rejected the Change Order and “requested that Spartan immediately agree to promptly begin its work” with no additional compensation. Hallowed Grounds’ letter continued:

Going forward, we also request that you understand and comply with your obligations to us, the Owner, in performing your duties in the administration of the contract, which includes performing a full and complete analysis and review of any and all costs included in the payment applications and change orders that are submitted to you by the contractor prior to your certification of those costs.

On October 7, 2022, Hallowed Grounds notified Spartan that it was in default of its contractual obligations for failing to commence work on the Project. On October 13, 2022, as part of its response to the notice of default, Spartan advised Hallowed Grounds that, “our Architect, Randy Aultman, was hired for permit drawings only – not construction administration ․” On October 21, 2022, Hallowed Grounds sent Aultman a request to certify cause to terminate Spartan based on Spartan's failure to complete work on the Project per the Contract. On October 31, 2022, through counsel, Aultman sent correspondence to Hallowed Grounds reasserting that he was not hired for construction phase services and would not certify termination.

On November 30, 2022, Hallowed Grounds filed suit against Aultman alleging Aultman breached the standard of care and the duty it owed to Hallowed Grounds by various actions and inactions during the course of the Project, specifically: (1) failing to perform a proper and adequate analysis, investigation, and evaluation of the legitimacy of the cost and time increases included in the Change Order prior to executing the Change Order, (2) failing to advise the Owner of his reasons for signing the Change Order, (3) failing to put the best interest of the Project before all other factors, (4) failing to prevent undue economic pressure or financial hardship on Hallowed Grounds, and (5) failing to act in accordance with the generally accepted standards of a certified professional architect.

On February 15, 2023, Spartan and Hallowed Grounds voluntarily agreed to terminate the Contract for convenience. As a condition of the termination, Spartan provided Hallowed Grounds the site drawings and plans for the Project created by Aultman.

On October 9, 2024, Aultman filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to have the case dismissed. In his summary judgment, Aultman alleged (1) Hallowed Grounds cannot establish a duty as it related to the decision for termination for cause and (2) Hallowed Grounds cannot show that Aultman's act of signing the change order was the cause-in-fact of the project not being built. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Aultman in open court on December 6, 2024, finding that there was “no genuine issue of material fact that Mr. Aultman was contracted by Spartan to be involved in a limited scope for his work to produce contract documents towards permitting.” Thereafter, on January 6, 2025, the trial court signed a judgment in accordance with its ruling.

The trial court found Aultman's contract with Spartan involved a limited scope for his work, which was to produce documents towards the goal of permitting, and that under the limited scope of Aultman's agreement with Spartan, Aultman did not have a duty to certify the termination for cause. The trial court further found that Aultman assumed responsibility by signing the change order: however, Aultman's signing of the change order was not the cause-in-fact of Hallowed Grounds’ alleged injuries.

On appeal, Hallowed Grounds argues that the trial court erred in finding that (1) the Architect's actions were not a cause-in-fact of its injury and a genuine issue of material fact existed on this issue and (2) the trial court erred by weighing evidence and making credibility determination related to evidence submitted by Hallowed Grounds which was held to higher burden of proof beyond the requirements of La. Code Civ. P. art. 966.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

On a motion for summary judgment, the burden of proof is on the mover. If, however, the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's burden on the motion does not require that all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense be negated. Instead, the mover must point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. Thereafter, the adverse party must produce factual evidence sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(D)(1). If the adverse party fails to meet this burden, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the mover is entitled to summary judgment. Robles v. ExxonMobile 2002-0854 (La. App. 1 Cir. 03/28/03), 844 So. 2d 339, 341.

In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Boudreaux v. Vankerkhove, 2007-2555 (La. App. 1 Cir. 08/11/08), 993 So. 2d 725, 729-730. An appellate court thus asks the same questions as does the trial court in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate: whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the mover-appellant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Ernest v. Petroleum Service Corp., 2002-2482 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/19/03), 868 So. 2d 96, 97, writ denied, 2003-3439 (La. 02/20/04), 866 So. 2d 830.

A genuine issue is a “triable issue” or one as to which reasonable persons could disagree. Material facts are those elemental to a plaintiff's cause of action, and they may determine the outcome of a legal dispute according to the applicable substantive law. A fact is material if it potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant's ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute. Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512 (La. 07/05/94), 639 So. 2d 730, 751.

With regard to the claim of negligent professional undertaking, Louisiana courts have adopted a duty-risk analysis in determining whether to impose liability under general negligence principles. Daniels v. US Agencies Cas. Ins. Co., 2011-1357 (La. App. 1 Cir. 05/03/12), 92 So. 3d 1049, 1055. For liability to attach under a duty-risk analysis, a plaintiff must prove five separate elements: (1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard of care (the duty element); (2) the defendant failed to conform his conduct to the appropriate standard of care (the breach of duty element); (3) the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (4) the defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries (the scope of protection element); and (5) the actual damages (the damage element). Id; Lathan Co., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Educ., Recovery Sch. Dist., 2016-0913 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/06/17), writ denied, 2018-0026 (La. 03/09/18), 237 So. 3d 1191. According to the deposition of Duane Superneau, an owner of Hallowed Grounds, Aultman was “obligated under professional circumstance” to administer the Contract and act as a representative of Hallowed Grounds during the entire construction phase. Hallowed Grounds also argues that Aultman needed to comply with all the responsibilities listed in the Contract, including reviewing and processing change orders, overseeing contractor compliance, and certifying termination for cause because his actions were already consistent with part of the listed duties. Hallowed Grounds argues the summary judgment evidence establishes genuine issues of material fact regarding Aultman's duty and that he caused Hallowed Grounds’ alleged damages.

On the contrary, Aultman argues that his only contractual involvement was made verbally with Spartan for the Project, and it was for a limited scope to prepare permit drawings only. Aultman states he was not identified as the architect in the Contract. Aultman further states that he was never retained by either Spartan or Hallowed Grounds. As such, the Contract is inapplicable to issues involving Aultman, specifically because it states “the Owner shall employ the architect.” Aultman contends that the trial court correctly granted his motion for summary judgment because Hallowed Grounds cannot establish that Aultman owed a duty to the Owner to certify its termination for cause under the Contract. Aultman further asserts that Hallowed Grounds cannot establish he was a cause-in-fact of the Owner's damages.

Change Order

Hallowed Grounds relies on the Contract as the nexus between it and the Architect, and argues when Aultman signed the Change Order, it could no longer challenge Spartan's demands. Hallowed Grounds points to Section 7.2.1 of the Contract:

A change order is a written instrument prepared by the Architect and signed by the Owner, Contractor and Architect, stating their agreement upon all the following:

1) Change in the Work;

2) The amount of the adjustment if any, in the Contract Sum,

3) and the extent of the adjustment if any in the Contract Time.

Hallowed Ground points to the fact that Aultman conceded that he signed the Change Order, and admittedly did not investigate whether the Change Order was necessary.

Exhibits

Aultman, in his motion for summary judgment, outlined that he had an understanding with Spartan that his services would be for the permitting process only. He submitted, in pertinent part, the following exhibits:

1) Aultman's Deposition Transcript in which he outlines his duties with numerous jobs he has done with Spartan over twenty years, including the Project;

2) Deposition Transcripts of Connie and Duane Superneau, owners of Hallowed Grounds, which included testimony regarding various exhibits and were submitted as attachments including:

a. The AIA Stipulated Sum Contract;

b. Change Order;

c. June 24, 2021 letter from Spartan to Connie and Duane Superneau, with original costs in a preliminary proposal;

d. August 19, 2022 letter from Spartan to Hallowed Grounds indicating the need for a Change Order to complete the Project specifically stating, “․ the pandemic has resulted in price increases, material delays, and labor shortages. Unprecedented supply chain issues combined with rampant inflation have created havoc on the availability and pricing of virtually all essential construction materials.”

e. August 31, 2022 letter to Spartan's owner from Connie and Duane Superneau indicating the change order lacked documentation, and therefore breached its contract;

f. October 21, 2022 letter from the Owners to Aultman regarding his duty as Architect, Spartan's default, and request to terminate the contract for cause.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Hallowed Grounds submitted:²

1) An Affidavit and Deposition Transcript of Connie Superneau

2) An October 13, 2022 letter from Spartan to Hallowed Grounds stating that Hallowed Grounds’ actions led to the delays with the Project;

3) An Affidavit and Deposition Transcript and an attached Forensic Report by forensic analyst, Larry Johnson,3 that reviewed Aultman's work and gave reasons that Aultman breached the stand of care and the architect's professional duty

4) Deposition Transcript and an Expert Report by Dean Duplantier wherein he stated that by signing the Change Order, Aultman could have administered construction services but found nothing regarding Aultman's breach of standard of care in his engagement by Spartan.

Duty

Herein, Hallowed Grounds admits not being involved in hiring Aultman but argues that he was the architect for the Project. Therefore, Hallowed Grounds believes that Aultman assumed had a duty to them as the Owner, as provided in the Contract and Aultman's subsequent actions. It relies on Lathan, which held that architects, owners, engineers, contractors, owners, and third parties on construction projects may owe a duty to one another even when there exists no privity on contract with the owners. Lathan, 237 So. 3d 1, 5-6, writ denied, 2018-0026 (La. 03/09/18), 237 So. 3d 1191. Aultman points to the Louisiana Supreme Court opinion in Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 3 82 So. 3d 62, 67-68 (La. 2024) which held that “[the] mere fact that an engineer or architect was involved in the construction process and had contractual duties to [an owner] does not create an all-encompassing duty to protect everyone from every risk which could be encountered during the course of the project.”

It is undisputed that Aultman signed the Change Order. Regardless of Aultman's limited role, Aultman may be subject to an action in tort brought by Hallowed Grounds even in the absence of any privity of contract. Such an action arises when there is a breach of a duty owed independently of the contract between the owner and architect. See Gurtler, Hebert & Co. v. Weyland Mach. Shop, 405 So. 2d 660 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1981), writ denied, 410 So. 2d 1130 (La. 1982); Calandro Development, Inc. v. R.M. Butler Contr., Inc., 249 So. 2d 254 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1971). Herein, we find that by signing the Change Order he assumed responsibility as the architect performing construction services and went beyond his scope of permitting. See Bellanger v. Webre, 2010-0720 (La. App. 1 Cir. 05/06/11), 65 So. 3d 201, 208, writ denied, 2011-1171 (La. 09/16/11), 69 So. 3d 1149.

While a duty may have arisen, there is no evidence that Aultman's signature altered the outcome of the Project or caused the alleged damages to Hallowed Grounds. Hallowed Grounds admitted that after refusing to sign the Change Order, it never sought to complete the Project, or involve another architect. Hallowed Grounds also admitted that it did not investigate whether the Change Order was appropriate. Hallowed Grounds argues that had Aultman refused to sign the Change Order, Spartan would have been forced to proceed with work at the agreed upon price. But, mere speculation will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. Bass v. DISA Glob. Sols., Inc., 2024-0024 (La. App. 1 Cir. 07/24/24), 395 So. 3d 1196, 1202.

Once Aultman demonstrated the absence of factual support that a genuine issue of material fact existed, the burden shifted to Hallowed Grounds to provide evidence that the Change Order was wrongfully submitted when signed by Aultman and the requested changes were not warranted. Hallowed Grounds failed to submit such evidence. Accordingly, we find Hallowed Grounds failed to put forth evidence to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue of material fact that Aultman caused the alleged damages.

Contract Termination

On October 21, 2022, Hallowed Grounds sent a request to Aultman to certify cause to terminate the Contract based on Spartan's failure to complete any work on the Project. The Contract sets out the grounds for termination of the Project for Cause or Convenience. Hallowed Grounds argues that it attempted to terminate for cause and, in accordance with the Contract, it required certification by the Architect “that sufficient cause exists to justify such action.” Aultman refused to sign the termination believing that certification was not within his employment purview. Through the various letters submitted as evidence with his motion for summary judgment, Aultman and Spartan delineated Aultman's finite role arguing establishing that there was no duty for Aultman to sign the termination paper. Aultman argues that the Contract did not apply to him and as such he had no duty to sign the termination.

The record is clear that Aultman was not hired by Hallowed Grounds, and his role was solely for the permitting portion of the Project. The record is devoid of evidence to establish that Aultman had a duty to terminate the Project on behalf of Hallowed Grounds. Further, Hallowed Grounds was able to terminate the contract. Hallowed Grounds failed to show on summary judgment that a genuine issue of material fact exits, namely that Aultman owed Hallowed Grounds a duty to sign the termination request. When no factual dispute exists and no credibility determinations are required, the legal question of the existence of a duty is appropriately addressed by summary judgment. Listach v. W. Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd, 2021-0079 (La. App. 1 Cir. 06/09/21), 328 So. 3d 450, 456, writ denied, 2021-00982 (La. 11/03/21), 326 So. 3d 887.

After de novo review, we find Aultman satisfied his burden on his summary judgment by showing the absence of factual support for one or more elements of Hallowed Grounds’ claims against him. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1). The summary judgment burden then shifted to Hallowed Grounds, which failed to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that Aultman is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1). Thus, Aultman's motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's January 6, 2025 judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of James R. Aultman, AIA. We assess costs of this appeal to Hallowed Grounds, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   AIA A101-1997 is an American Institute of Architects standard contract for use in building projects.

2.   The trial court denied evidentiary objections to certain attachments to Aultman's motion for summary judgment made at the proceedings on December 6, 2024. There are no errors raised on appeal regarding the denial of the objections.

3.   According to his CV, Larry Johnson is a licensed professional architect with extensive education in and experience with forensic architecture and analyses of the standard of care of architects in Louisiana.

BALFOUR, J.

Penzato, J. concurs by KEB.