LOUISIANA REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. HOUMA TERREBONNE HOUSING AUTHORITY (2026)

Defendant, Houma Terrebonne Housing Authority (the “Housing Authority”), appeals the trial court's June 6, 2024 judgment against it in favor of plaintiff, Louisiana Realty Development, L.LC. (“LRD”), awarding damages to plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, we amend the judgment and affirm as amended.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This suit arises from a contractual dispute between the Housing Authority and LRD. LRD was the owner of three modular homes. Modular-1 and Modular-2 were located on property owned by LRD. Modular-3 was located on property owned by Louisiana Corral Management, LLC (“Louisiana Corral”). Steve Layne is the owner/manager of both LRD and Louisiana Corral.

Despite the fact that none of the modular homes were listed for sale, Wayne Thibodeaux, the executive director of the Housing Authority, approached Layne about purchasing the modular homes. According to Thibodeaux, the modular homes “were large enough for a plan to convert to ․ multi-family housing.”¹ Thibodeaux testified that the Housing Authority's plan was to relocate the modular homes to land it owned and renovate them for multi-family housing.

At the time, Modular-2 and Modular-3 were vacant. One Way Check Advance of Louisiana, L.L.C. (“One Way”) occupied Modular-1 pursuant to a December 21, 2012 commercial lease agreement with LRD for both Modular-1 and parking spaces; however, the parking spaces were on the property of Louisiana Corral.

On September 9, 2016, the Housing Authority entered into multiple Acts of Cash Sale with LRD in which LRD agreed to sell Modular-1 for $55,000.00, Modular-2 for $70,000.00, and Modular-3 for $3 5,000.00. Pursuant to each of the contracts, the Housing Authority was responsible for removing the modular homes from LRD's property within 120 days from the execution of the contracts, or January 7, 2017. However, the contracts provided that LRD retained the right to continue leasing to and collecting rent from tenants of the modular homes during the time the modular homes remained on LRD's property. Additionally, the contracts provided that the Housing Authority was to return to LRD the wheels, axles, and rails after the removal of the modular homes at LRD's expense.

After the closing on the sales, Thibodeaux researched haulers to move the modular homes, but the haulers did not have the capacity to move the modular homes.² While Thibodeaux also drafted advertisements to solicit bids for a hauler, Thibodeaux and an attorney for the Housing Authority could not settle on the language of the advertisement for the hauler. Thibodeaux testified that he was not aware if an advertisement was ever published. By the end of January 2017, Thibodeaux was relieved of his duties as Executive Director of the Housing Authority.

Ultimately, the Housing Authority posted advertisements for bids for the sales of the modular homes in November and December of 2019.³ In January 2020, the Housing Authority entered into purchase agreements on all three modular homes. Modular-1 and Modular-3 were moved sometime in July 2020, and Modular-2 was moved in October 2020.⁴

On June 28, 2017, LRD sued the Housing Authority for breach of contract, seeking damages and lost rental income due to the Housing Authority's failure to remove the modular homes from LRD's property by January 7, 2017.⁵ Particularly, LRD alleged that one of the modular homes was leased at the time of the sale for $3,300.00 per month but that it “did not renew and extend the lease so that [LRD] could fulfill it's obligation to have the modular homes available for [the Housing Authority.]” LRD further alleged that it did not have the “ability to collect rents for [the] use of the modular homes because of the uncertain time frame as to ‘when’ the modular homes will be removed by [the Housing Authority].” LRD claimed that it lost potential rents and profits and the loss of enjoyment and use of the underlying premises on which the modular homes were situated due to the Housing Authority's breach of contract. LRD prayed for “damages in lost rental of $3300.00 per month per modular home and other damages[.]”

After the modular homes were moved, LRD supplemented and amended its petition on October 20, 2020, to add claims for damages resulting from the removal of rails, axles, cinder blocks, cement stairs, and railings that were never returned. The Housing Authority answered the petition and supplemental and amending petition, asserting affirmative defenses, including that all or some of LRD's claims for damages were not recoverable because they were too speculative, uncertain, or contingent; that LRD failed to mitigate its damages; and that it was entitled to compensation and/or set-off due to LRD's use of the modular homes for storage.⁶

A bench trial on the merits was conducted on April 9 and 22, 2024. At the conclusion of the trial, the matter was taken under advisement. The trial court issued a written judgment on May 31, 2024, in favor of LRD and against the Housing Authority specifically “for lost revenue, rails, axles, and cinder blocks in the amount of [$121,300.00,]” including court costs and judicial interest until paid. Thereafter, the Housing Authority requested written reasons for judgment, which the trial court issued on November 4, 2024.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court found that the uncontradicted testimony revealed that the Housing Authority failed to remove the modular homes, without justification, within the allotted 120 days. Two of the modular homes were not removed until July 2020, and the third was not removed until October 2020. The trial court did not find merit in LRD's claim for lost revenues due to a failed or potential development on LRD's property. However, the trial court did “find merit to [LRD's] argument that it lost rental revenue for the Housing Authority's failure to remove one of the modular homes as the check cashing business could have remained renting from [LRD] had it known that the modular home would not be removed until July 2020.” The trial court was also satisfied that LRD proved that some of its property, namely cinder blocks, rails, and axles, were removed and not returned to LRD after the modular homes were removed. Accordingly, the trial court awarded LRD $120,000.00 in damages “for lost rental revenue from the check cashing company” and also awarded $1,300.00, “representing a portion of the cost of the rails, axles, and cinder blocks purchased by [LRD] that were used in the fulfillment [of] the Housing Authority's obligation to contractually remove the homes from the property and were not returned[.]”⁷

The Housing Authority appeals from the May 31, 2024 judgment and assigns the following errors: (1) the trial court erred in awarding damages for lost rental payments that terminated, in accordance with a written lease, before the Housing Authority's failure to move the modular homes and without any evidence from the former tenant that it would have remained and/or renewed the lease but for the Housing Authority's delay in moving the modular; (2) the trial court erred in awarding damages for the loss of cinder blocks, stairs, and/or handrails that were attached to, and necessary components of, the modular homes and were not expressly excluded from the sale to the Housing Authority; and (3) the trial court erred in awarding damages for the loss of rails and axles as LRD could not have liquidated those items for any discernable amount based on the evidence.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The party bringing the suit has the burden of proving any damage suffered by it as a result of the breach of contract. L & A Contracting Co., Inc. v. Ram Indus. Coatings, Inc., 1999-0354 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/23/00), 762 So.2d 1223, 1235, writ denied, 2000-2232 (La. 11/13/00), 775 So.2d 438. A plaintiff must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Hebert v. Rapides Par. Police Jury, 2006-2001 (La. 4/11/07), 974 So.2d 63 5, 642, on reh'g (Jan. 16, 2008). Speculation, conjecture, mere possibility, and even unsupported probabilities are not sufficient to prove a plaintiff's claim. Id. (citing Coon v. Placid Oil Co., 493 So.2d 1236, 1240 (La. App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 497 So.2d 1002 (La. 1986)). Moreover, the loss of profits must be proven with reasonable certainty and cannot be based upon speculation and conjecture. Moss v. Guarisco, 459 So.2d 1, 6 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1984), writ denied, 462 So.2d 1247 (La. 1985).

Generally, an obligor is liable for the damages caused by his failure to perform a contract. La. Civ. Code art. 1994. Damages for breach of contract are measured by the loss sustained by the obligee and the profit of which he has been deprived. La. Civ. Code art. 1995. An obligor in good faith is liable only for the damages that were foreseeable at the time the contract was made.⁸ La. Civ. Code art. 1996. Accordingly, the measure of damages is the sum that will place the obligee in the same position as if the obligation had been fulfilled. LAD Services of Louisiana, L.L.C. v. Superior Derrick Services, L.L.C.,2013-0163 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/7/14), 167 So.3d 746, 761, writ not considered, 2015-0086 (La. 4/2/15), 162 So.3d 392.

Assessing the amount of damages for breach of contract inherently involves resolving questions of fact. If a reasonable factual basis exists, an appellate court may set aside a factual finding only if, after reviewing the record in its entirety, it determines the factual finding was clearly wrong. See LAD Servs. of Louisiana, L.L.C., 167 So.3d at 762 (citing Stobart v. State, through Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993)); Sullivan v. City of Baton Rouge, 2014-0964 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1/27/15), 170 So.3d 186, 204 (absent an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's assessment of damages).

At trial, LRD put forth evidence and testimony to show its damages as a result of the Housing Authority's failure to remove the modular homes in accordance with the Acts of Cash Sale.⁹ Concerning LRD's claim for lost profits and rents, Layne testified that LRD leased Modular-1 and parking spaces to One Way for $3,000.00 per month.¹⁰ The lease was admitted into evidence at trial and provided as follows:

SECTION II

TERM

The initial term of this lease is 2 years and 1 partial month, commencing on the 24th day of December, 2012 (the “Commencement Date”) and expiring the 31st day of December, 2014 (Years 1 and 2). As long as the existing modular building remains on the property, Lessee will have the option of extending the lease an additional two years to December 31, 2016 (Years 3 and 4). Lessee understands the monthly rental will increase 10% in Years 3 and 4 should the Lessee exercise this option.

By its own terms, the lease was set to expire on December 31, 2016, with no contractual option to extend the lease.

Layne testified that One Way gave notice it was leaving in September 2016, after he informed One Way that Modular-1 had been sold. One Way “found another location right away and left.” According to the summary of rental payments admitted into evidence at trial, One Way paid LRD $3,000.00 per month through October 2016.¹¹ However, Layne testified that he was certain One Way left in September 2016.

As noted above, the trial court reasoned that One Way could have remained renting from LRD had it known that the modular home would not be removed until July 2020. However, the lease between One Way and LRD was set to expire on December 31, 2016, by its own terms and did not provide an option to extend the lease beyond December 31, 2016. There was no testimony or evidence establishing or suggesting that One Way or LRD considered entering into a new lease beyond December 31, 2016, or even that LRD expected to continue the lease arrangement on a month-to-month basis for any period of time after the lease expired.

The only testimony concerning One Way's actions presented at trial was Layne's, the entirety of which is reproduced below:

Q. Now, you sold the homes in September of 2016?

A. Correct.

Q. And when did [One Way] move out?

A. That same - I believe it was September of ‘16 was when they gave me notice that they were leaving.

Q. Okay. You obviously advised them that -

A. Yes, I had sold the house.

Q. And that they could be moved within four months?

A. Correct.

Q. So they weren't really interested in staying out there?

A. No, not for the four months - they found another location right away and left.

Speculation, conjecture, mere possibility, and even unsupported probabilities are not sufficient to prove a plaintiff's claim. Hebert, 974 So.2d at 642 (citing Coon, 493 So.2d at 1240). However, Layne's testimony falls short of speculation or even conjecture and fails to provide a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's award of lost rental revenue from January 7, 2017 through July 2020. See Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882.

We acknowledge it is possible that One Way could have continued to rent Modular-1 from LRD had it known that Modular-1 would not be moved until July 2020. However, there was no evidence at trial showing that this was a reasonable or likely possibility but for the Housing Authority's breach in failing to remove the modular homes. Stated another way, there was no evidence that the lease of Modular-1 beyond the expiration of the lease was a foreseeable damage for the Housing Authority's breach of contract. See La. Civ. Code art. 1996 (an obligor in good faith is only liable for the damages foreseeable at the time the contract was made). Importantly, the measure of damages is the sum that would place the obligee in the same position as if the obligation had been fulfilled. LAD Services of Louisiana, L.L.C., 167 So.3d at 761. Here, had the Housing Authority fulfilled its obligation under the terms of the Acts of Cash Sale, the modular homes would have been removed by January 7, 2017, making it impossible for One Way to continue leasing Modular-1.

Therefore, the trial court's award of $120,000.00, representing approximately forty months of lost rental revenues on Modular-1 from January 7, 2017 through July 2020, was manifestly erroneous. Notwithstanding, because assessing the amount of damages for breach of contract inherently involves resolving questions of fact, this court cannot set aside the trial court's award of damages unless, after reviewing the record in its entirety, we determine the award of $120,000.00 was clearly wrong. See LAD Services of Louisiana, L.L.C., 167 So.3d at 762 (citing Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882).

At trial, LRD put forth evidence and testimony in an attempt to show the Housing Authority's breach of contract was the cause of lost revenues due to the failed development of the property. LRD offered the testimony of Layne and Joseph Boudreaux, II, a commercial contractor who worked on projects with Layne. Layne testified that he considered putting “either a restaurant in the front, or some kind of shopping center in the back[ ]” around the time the modular homes were sold and even had Boudreaux come up with some drawings. He also testified there were a few entities interested in purchasing some of the parcels - a New Orleans entity considering placing a dental office on the front parcel and a local real estate broker with interest in the back parcel. Layne testified there were “several franchise concepts that [he] had thought about at one time or another[.]” However, Layne did not pursue the franchises because he could not “do anything until these houses [were] gone[ ]” and that he was no longer interested in developing the property for a restaurant.

Boudreaux testified that he and Layne discussed building a drive-through restaurant on the front parcel, and he developed some drawings for this concept. They also considered options for the back parcel, but its location was not ideal. On cross-examination, Boudreaux admitted that some, if not all, of the concepts for the front parcel would require a fairly significant lot line adjustment due to the need for parking and a drainage servitude. Boudreaux ultimately agreed that the restaurant concepts would necessitate either lot line adjustments or variances based on the manner in which the parcels were subdivided. However, Boudreaux testified that none of the concepts were developed far enough for Layne to request a lot line adjustment and there was never any actual progress on the concepts he and Layne discussed.

Additionally, LRD put forth testimony regarding the value of its alleged loss of rental revenue and profits. LRD offered the testimony of Brian Larose, who was accepted as expert on real estate appraisals. Larose was hired to provide an appraisal report of three different tracts of land, referred to as Tracts A (the front parcel), B (the middle parcel), and C (the back parcel), including the current market rental value of the vacant areas. Tract A, which fronted Martin Luther King Boulevard, was a triangular-shaped lot where Modular-1 was previously located. Tract C, which fronted Enterprise Drive, was located the furthest away from Martin Luther King Boulevard and where Modular-2 was previously located. Tracts A and C were owned by LRD. Tract B, owned by Louisiana Corral, encompassed the Golden Corral restaurant and its associated parking lot and was the prior location of Modular-3.

Larose testified that he was not provided with any legal descriptions or surveys of the tracts by LRD and was told this information was not available. Without this information, Larose researched the three tracts and estimated the sizes of the tracts based on the parish assessor's maps and tax assessments, an overhead GIS map, and Google Earth. He stated that he was “estimating from the get go, because [he didn't] know what size those sites were.”

At the time Larose inspected the property, the modular homes had been removed and he was not provided any information on the size of the modular homes or their required parking area usage. He agreed that he was doing his best, based on his experience and the information provided, to glean what area would have been served by the associated rental use of modular areas of the tracts. However, he acknowledged that he used a larger footprint than his estimated size of the modular homes because of his assumption that a commercial lease would require more rental space than simply the area the building uses – parking and other amenities are a consideration. Larose further admitted that he did not speak with Layne or his attorney about the square footage or any other parameters for the rental sites. As Larose stated, he was “driving in the dark – as dark as dark could possibly be.”

According to Larose, the highest and best use of the property would be a commercial/retail space. However, Larose testified that there were no comparable vacant land rentals in the area to determine the market value. With no comparable land rentals, he began his calculations with “the value of the whole vacant site,” which combined all three tracts together and assumed that no improvements existed on the site. Larose estimated the market value of his hypothetical vacant site to be approximately $16.50 per square foot, or $2,250,000.00, based on comparable raw land sales (land zoned for retail and commercial use). Larose next extracted the capitalization rate, which is the rate investors require for a return on their investment, using sales of improved properties in the area, including sales of an apartment complex and a strip shopping center. He determined that the capitalization rate attributable to the whole vacant site was approximately 9.5%.

Larose used his estimations of market value and capitalization rate for the whole vacant site in order to arrive at his calculation of the rental value of the smaller tracts. Based on Larose's calculations, Tract A, which he estimated to be 13,000 square feet, and Tract C, which he estimated to be 12,000 square feet, would have a rental value (for the raw land only) of $1,881.60 and $1,736.72 per month, respectively.¹²

However, Larose admitted on cross-examination that his estimate of 13,000 square feet utilized in his calculation of rental value for Tract A was, in fact, larger than the estimated size of Tract A included within his own appraisal report, which was approximately 10,890 square feet or a quarter of an acre.¹³ Larose testified that he needed to use a larger area for Tract A because it was not large enough to accommodate a retail commercial site, which is why his tract encroached upon Tract B, owned by Louisiana Corral. Tract C, the back parcel, encroached on Tract B in Larose's estimations because it also needed more area in order to be a viable tract.

Larose admitted that he treated all three tracts as one larger tract that faced Martin Luther King Boulevard, which is considered the retail commercial business center of Houma, Louisiana, in order to determine the price per square foot, notwithstanding the fact the three tracts were owned separately. Larose conceded that Tract C did not front Martin Luther King Boulevard, and instead had access through Enterprise Drive, which would have a lesser value than property with access through Martin Luther King Boulevard. Larose further agreed that the drainage servitude encumbering Tract C would potentially reduce its value. In fact, Larose “guesstimate [d]” that an appropriate market value for property fronting Enterprise Drive would be about $10.00 per square foot as opposed to the $16.50 per square foot used for the value of all three tracts of land combined.

Testimony elicited from Layne on cross-examination revealed that the modular homes were never listed for lease when LRD owned the modular homes between 2012 and 2016. In fact, One Way approached Layne about leasing Modular-1, situated on Tract A. Layne explained that because it was a residential modular home, it was not well-suited for general retail or commercial businesses, as the modular would require modifications, such as widening the hallways and other modifications for fire and handicap requirements. While these modifications were not impossible, they were not without cost. LRD never leased Modular-3 or Modular-2, which was located on Tract C in the back of the property.¹⁴ Additionally, Layne testified that he never tried to lease Tracts A or C until three months prior to trial, which was over three and a half years after the last modular home was removed from the property.

The trial court expressly stated that it did not find merit to LRD's claims that the Housing Authority's breach of contract caused LRD to lose revenue due to the alleged failed development of the property. In its reasons for judgment, the trial court explained:

The development was in its early planning stages, parish approval and permits (which had not been received) were required, the development would require the approval of Louisiana Corral Management (who is not a party to this litigation), and the property has remained undeveloped for four (4) years after the removal of the modular homes.

In view of the evidence and testimony, we agree with the trial court. LRD did not establish its entitlement to damages for the failed development of the property by a preponderance of the evidence or with reasonable certainty. See Hebert, 974 So.2d at 642; Moss, 459 So.2d at 6; see also Ross and Wallace Paper Products, Inc. v. Team Logistics, Inc., 2019-0196 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/8/20); 308 So.3d 346, 355, writ denied, 2020-00989 (La. 11/4/20), 303 So.3d 641 (“It must appear reasonably certain that the amount of damages rests upon a certain basis.”).

The trial court did not address Larose's testimony or estimations of the rental value of the property in its reasons for judgment. However, Larose's testimony was speculative, at best, and not sufficient to prove LRD's claim for lost revenues with reasonable certainty. See Hebert, 974 So.2d at 642 (citing Coon, 493 So.2d at 1240); Moss, 459 So.2d at 6; Ross and Wallace Paper Products, Inc., 308 So.3d at 355. Accordingly, we do not find error in the trial court's failure to reference or otherwise indicate reliance on Larose's testimony in connection with LRD's claims for loss of rental revenue.

After reviewing the record in its entirety, we find the evidence and testimony presented do not provide a reasonable factual basis for the entire award of $120,000.00. However, considering the Housing Authority's clear breach of contract resulting in Modular-1 and Modular-2 remaining on LRD's property for over three years and considering LRD's use of the modular homes during this time, we find a reasonable factual basis exists for an award of damages in the amount of $10,000.00. Accordingly, the Housing Authority's first assignment of error has merit.

The Housing Authority's second and third assignments of error concern the damages awarded for the failure to return LRD's property. The Housing Authority argues that the Acts of Cash Sale of the modular homes included “any improvements or additions thereto[.]” The Housing Authority further argued that because the cinder blocks were purchased specifically for the modular homes to support and service the homes and because they remained with the homes “for years,” the cinder blocks were improvements or additions to the modular homes. The Housing Authority cited no legal authority for this assertion, and we do not find merit in this argument.

The Housing Authority also argued that no amount should have been awarded for the loss of the rails and axles because LRD could no longer receive a return on its deposits from the manufacturer. Layne testified that when the modular homes were purchased from the manufacturer, a “Modular Carrier Deposit” was charged, which was the deposit for the rails and axles that were to be returned to the manufacturer. Modular-1 and Modular-2 each had a $6,120.00 deposit and Modular-3 ’s deposit was $4,380.00. On cross-examination, Layne admitted that the manufacturer of the modular homes was no longer in business and he would not be able to receive his deposit for the return of the rails and axles.

Importantly, the Housing Authority was contractually obligated to return the rails and axles. The Acts of Cash Sale provided that the Housing Authority “shall return at [LRD's] expense to [LRD] the wheels, axles, and rails of the modular home.” At trial, the undisputed testimony of Layne established that each of the modular homes had rails and axles, which were used in connection with the transportation of the homes and were not permanently affixed thereto. After the homes were removed on behalf of the HA, the rails and axles were never returne

Layne also testified that he purchased a number of cinder blocks, which were used to shore up the modular homes and keep them from moving. According to Layne, there were about 120 cinder blocks used to shore up Modular-1, 100 cinder blocks were used for Modular-2, and approximately 80-85 cinder blocks were used for Modular-3. The uncontroverted testimony of Layne established that the cinder blocks for all the modular homes were removed and never returned. Layne further testified that the cost of each cinder block was about $1.90 plus tax, or approximately $2.10 each.

The trial court explained in its reasons for judgment that it awarded $1,300.00 “representing a portion of the cost of the rails, axles, and cinder blocks[.]” While the rails and axles could no longer be returned to the manufacturer for a return of LRD's $16,620.00 deposit, the equipment was not without value. Given the value of the 300-305 cinder blocks removed and not returned was between $630.00 and $640.50, the remaining $659.50 to $670.00 would be attributable to the three sets of rails and axles, which at one time had a value of $16,620.00. Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in its award of $1,300.00 for the rails, axles, and cinder blocks removed and never returned.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we amend the trial court's June 6, 2024 judgment to reduce the amount awarded in favor of Louisiana Realty Development, L.L.C. and against the Houma Terrebonne Housing Authority to $11,300.00, and affirm as amended. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $9,310.00 are assessed equally to Louisiana Realty Development, L.L.C. and the Houma Terrebonne Housing Authority.

JUDGMENT AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Modular-1 was 30” x 60” (1,800 square feet); Modular-2 was 27“4’ x 66” with an additional attached room of 13“8’ x 36” (2,296 square feet); and Modular-3 was 30” x 48” (1,440 square feet).

2.   Nikita Gilton, who was the housing manager at the time the Housing Authority purchased the modular homes from LRD and who became executive director of the Housing Authority in February of 2018, testified that it was Thibodeaux's decision to purchase the modular homes. Thibodeaux applied to HUD (the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) for a grant for replacement housing and received $175,000.00 of which he used $160,000.00 to purchase the three modular homes from LRD. Gilton testified that modular homes should not have been purchased for this use, as they were to be placed in a flood zone and would need to be elevated ten to fourteen feet in addition to the requirement that the units be made handicap accessible. In light of the fact that only $15,000.00 remained from the initial grant money, there was not enough money to move, raise, or modify the homes. Rather, the funds would need to come out of the capital funds, which required approval by HUD.

3.   According to Gilton, the required process to place the modular homes for sale took longer than anticipated, in part, because Thibodeaux failed to correctly place these assets into the “PIC” system. The “PIC” system is a computerized database where assets are placed into a registry for tracking and identification by the Housing Authority and HUD.

4.   Modular-1 sold to Christopher Riley for $2,699.99. Modular-3, which was located on Louisiana Corral's property, sold to Jerome Boykin for $12,100.00. Modular-2 sold to Weusi Thibodeaux, son of Thibodeaux, for $15,000.00. According to Thibodeaux, it cost his son approximately $22,000.00 to move Modular-2 about eight miles north to Gray, Louisiana.

5.   Despite the allegations of the petition, only Modular-1 and Modular-2 were located on LRD's property, while Modular-3 was located on Louisiana Corral's property. A separate suit was filed by Louisiana Corral, involving claims of detrimental reliance and trespass, and third-party beneficiary claims.

6.   LRD admitted in its supplemental and amending petition that it kept business records in one of the modular homes. Layne also testified that the modular homes stored his and/or his companies’ property after January 7, 2017. Additionally, photographs taken on May 20, 2019, which were introduced into evidence at trial, depicted an assortment of items located in the modular homes.

7.   The trial court explained that it awarded $3,000.00 per month from the date the modular homes were to be removed (January 7, 2017) until the date the modular home previously rented by the check cashing business was removed on behalf of the Housing Authority (July 2020), or approximately forty months.

8.   Conversely, an obligor in bad faith is liable for all the damages, foreseeable or not, that are a direct consequence of his failure to perform. La. Civ. Code art. 1997. While LRD alleged that the Housing Authority acted in bad faith in failing and refusing to remove the modular homes in a timely fashion, the May 31, 2024 judgment is silent as to the good or bad faith of the HA. Further, the November 4, 2024 reasons for judgment merely state that “[t]he uncontradicted trial testimony revealed that the Housing Authority failed to remove the modular homes, without justification, within the allotted 120 days.” Generally, when a judgment is silent as to any part of a demand or any issue that was litigated, that issue or demand is deemed rejected. City of Baton Rouge v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 2007-0005 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/14/07), 970 So.2d 985, 990.Notwithstanding, we note that bad faith does not mean the mere breach of faith in not complying with a contract, but a designed breach of it from some motive of interest or ill will. Roba, Inc. v. Courtney, 2009-0508 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/10/10), 47 So.3d 500, 508. An obligor is in bad faith if he intentionally and maliciously fails to perform his obligation. La. Civ. Code art. 1997, Revision Comments—1984, comments (b) & (c). There was no evidence presented at trial supporting the assertion that the Housing Authority acted in bad faith.

9.   At trial, Layne clarified that he was asking the trial court to award “the rental value, the loss of use, of the two modular homes on [LRD's property.]” When asked whether LRD ever attempted to lease the property that it claims to have lost rent on, Layne responded, “I'm claiming that there's a value for having your property, on my property, for four years – yes. What if I parked my – something in from of your house for four years, would you expect me to not pay you a dime?” Counsel for the Housing Authority asked if he meant storage costs, to which Layne responded, “Anything ․ if I took up your entire front yard, with something for four years,․ would you think I would owe you anything?”

10.   As noted supra, the parking spaces were on property owned by Louisiana Corral.

11.   If the option to renew the lease was exercised for years 3 and 4 (January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016), the lease provided that monthly rent would increase 10% (from $3,000.00 to $3,300.00 per month). However, the summary of rental payments clearly indicated that One Way paid $3,000.00 per month from March 2013 through October 2016, and Layne testified that the rent was $3,000.00 per month.

12.   It is noted that Layne, Ray Rhymes (LRD's prior attorney), and Gilton testified there was a meeting in April 2017 discussing the Housing Authority's issues with removing the modular homes and potentially paying rent to LRD. Layne testified that $5,000.00 per month would have been a fair rental value, but he asked for $4,500.00 per month. Layne and Rhymes alluded to a verbal agreement with the Housing Authority to pay past due rent, but Rhymes testified that no rent was ever paid due to the Housing Authority's inability to use available funds to pay rent. According to Gilton, the Housing Authority could not enter into any lease agreement without first obtaining bids for the particular service, funding from HUD, and Board approval.

13.   According to the Act of Cash Sale in which LRD acquired Tracts A and C, Tract A was 11,869 square feet.

14.   In fact, neither Modular-2 nor Modular-3 had electricity but both had electrical hookups.

HESTER, J.