CALAIS v. BOUTTEE (2026)

Charles Calais (hereinafter “Mr. Calais”) seeks review of two trial court judgments: (1) an August 29, 2025 judgment awarding $22,900.00 in damages; and (2) a September 16, 2025 amended judgment awarding attorney fees, costs and judicial interest. After consideration of the record before this Court and the applicable law, we vacate the September 16, 2025 amended judgment; reinstate the August 29, 2025 judgment; and remand the matter with instructions.

Relevant Facts

The underlying facts concern a breach of contract claim. Mr. Calais executed a written lease agreement with Edmond Bouttee (hereinafter “Mr. Bouttee”) on May 23, 2020 for the lease of a residential property located in New Orleans, Louisiana. The lease included an eighteen (18) month term, beginning on June 3, 2020 and terminating on November 30, 2021. Rent, in the amount of $1,700.00 per month, was due on the first of every month. The lease provided that a $100.00 late fee would be assessed if rent was not paid by the fifth day of the month and an additional $50.00 per day for each day the rent was late. Mr. Bouttee paid rent through January 31, 2021 but, did not pay rent from February 2021 to November 2021.¹

On March 2, 2021, the parties executed a “Declaration under Penalty of Perjury for the CDC's Temporary Halt in Eviction to Prevent Further Spread of COVID-19” (hereinafter “the declaration”).² The declaration affirmed the parties’ agreement that while Mr. Bouttee could not be evicted, he was nonetheless responsible for rent payments and associated fees in accordance with the provisions of the lease. Notwithstanding the declaration, on May 10, 2021, Mr. Bouttee was served with a five-day notice to vacate.³ Eventually, the parties entered into a consent judgment in the eviction proceedings and Mr. Bouttee vacated the property on December 3, 2021.

Procedural History

On October 6, 2021, Mr. Calais filed a petition for damages for breach of contract against Mr. Bouttee in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.⁴ Mr. Calais asserted that Mr. Bouttee breached the May 23, 2020 lease by failing to pay rent from February 2021 to October 2021 and housed a pet without permission.⁵ In his petition for damages, Mr. Calais sought costs for property damage, past due rent, late fees, attorney fees, judicial interest and all costs of the proceedings. Mr. Bouttee responded by filing an answer and reconventional demand. In his reconventional demand, Mr. Bouttee asserted claims for wrongful eviction/breach of warranty of peaceful possession and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Mr. Bouttee maintained that the assessment of penalties was unwarranted because his contraction of COVID-19 and Lupus diagnosis, rendered him unable to work, and as a result, unable to pay rent. He argued that Mr. Calais unfairly assessed an $800.00 late fee and required him to pay a $530.52 water bill balance.⁶ Finally, Mr. Bouttee submitted that he was wrongfully evicted as, at the time of the proceedings, there was no judgment terminating his right to possession and he was covered by the declaration. As plaintiff-in-reconvention, Mr. Bouttee sought damages, costs and attorney fees under La. R.S. 51:1409.⁷

The matter proceeded to trial, and a written judgment was rendered on August 29, 2025. The entirety of the judgment reads as follows:

After hearing the Court finds the law and evidence to be in favor of the Plaintiff, Charles Calais, and against the Defendant, Edmond Bouttee, as follows:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff is awarded $17,000 in back rent payments; penalties for failure to pay rent timely in the amounts of $1,400 for the month of October 2021 and $1,350 for the month of November 2021. Furthermore, Plaintiff shall be awarded $950 for having to remove the cameras from the home, $1,600 for the broken blinds in the home, and $600.00 for the debris removal; for a total of $22,900.00 in damages.

On September 5, 2025, Mr. Calais filed a “Motion to Clarify and Request for Additional Ruling,” requesting the trial court issue a supplemental ruling regarding attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest. However, at 9:47a.m. on September 15, 2025, Mr. Calais filed a motion for new trial asserting identical arguments raised in the motion to clarify. The trial court then signed an “Order,” dated September 16, 2025, addressing the motion to clarify and issued an amended judgment awarding Mr. Calais attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest. The “Order” did not delineate the amounts awarded and only referenced the applicable statutory provisions for attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest. However, the amended judgment awarded Mr. Calais $7,500.00 in attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest. By judgment dated January 16, 2026, the trial court denied Mr. Calais’ September 15, 2025 motion for new trial. This appeal followed.

Assignments of Error

Mr. Calais asserts three assignments of error, two of which concern the amount of damages awarded. In his third assignment of error, Mr. Calais argues that the trial court had authority to issue the September 16, 2025 amended judgment awarding attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest. Prior to determining the merits of the appeal, we first consider the procedural issue of whether Mr. Calais timely filed a motion for new trial and whether the trial court had the authority to render an amended judgment awarding attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest.

Motion for New Trial

The trial on the merits was held on July 9, 2025, and the trial court issued its judgment on August 9, 2025. On September 5, 2025, Mr. Calais filed a motion to clarify. He subsequently filed a motion for new trial on September 15, 2025, seeking the identical relief requested in the motion to clarify. Under La. C.C.P. art. 1974, the delay for applying for a new trial is seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, with the delay commencing to run on the day after the clerk has mailed the notice of judgment as required by La. C.C.P. art. 1913. Mr. Calais filed a motion for new trial regarding the August 29, 2025 judgment on September 15, 2025. As such, the motion for new trial was untimely. However, the motion to clarify filed on September 5, 2025, was filed within the delays for filing a motion for new trial and sought the same relief. “Our courts have recognized that a pleading, regardless of its caption, constitutes a motion for new trial if it requests a substantive modification of the judgment and is filed within the delays applicable to a motion for new trial.” Brown v. Brown, 2023-0132, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/3/23), 382 So.3d 899, 902 (quoting Downey v. Downey, 2021-0943, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/25/22), 2022 WL 575321 at *2). The motion to clarify sought a substantive modification to the judgment because Mr. Calais requested a ruling regarding attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest. Accordingly, we find that the motion to clarify constitutes a motion for new trial and was therefore timely.

Our analysis of these procedural issues are further complicated by the timing of Mr. Calais’ motions and the trial court's “Order” and amended judgment. It appears the filings were practically contemporaneous. The trial court issued an ex parte “Order” on the motion to clarify awarding attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest on September 16, 2025. That same day, the trial court issued an amended judgment awarding a specific amount of attorney fees and costs. La. C.C.P. art. 1951 provides:

On motion of the court or any party, a final judgment may be amended at any time to alter the phraseology of the judgment or to correct deficiencies in the decretal language or errors of calculation. The judgment may be amended only after a hearing with notice to all parties, except that a hearing is not required if all parties consent or if the court or the party submitting the amended judgment certifies that it was provided to all parties at least five days before the amendment and that no opposition has been received. A final judgment may not be amended under this Article to change its substance.

A trial court is only permitted to change the substance of a judgment by way of a timely motion for new trial; timely appeal; or through a nullity action. Mercato Elisio, L.L.C. v. City of New Orleans, 2022-0228, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/22), 356 So.3d 505, 510 (citation omitted). As previously determined, Mr. Calais’ motion to clarify constitutes a timely motion for new trial. While we recognize that a contradictory hearing is generally not required on a motion for new trial, this is only the case “if the motion simply reiterates issues thoroughly considered at trial.” Everett v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 2022-0539, p. 16 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/2/23), 382 So.3d 216, 227 (citation omitted). There was no evidence presented at trial regarding attorney fees thus, a contradictory hearing was required. Further, “any amendment that adds to, subtracts from, or in any way affects the substance of a judgment, is considered a substantive amendment.” Audubon Orthopedic & Sports Med., APMC v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 2009-0007, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/21/10), 38 So.3d 963, 969 (citation omitted). We find awarding attorney fees in an amended judgment constitutes a substantive amendment to the judgment because it adds to it and affects the substance of the judgment. See Locke v. Madcon Corp., 2021-0382, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/30/21), 340 So.3d 946, 950 (“A change in a judgment which alters the amount of relief that a party is entitled to receive is a substantive change.”). “Substantive amendments to judgments made without recourse to the proper procedures․are absolute nullities.” Bates v. City of New Orleans, 2013-1153, p. 14 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/14), 137 So.3d 774, 785 (internal citation omitted). “The remedy generally granted by an appellate court when it finds an improper substantive amendment has been made to a final judgment is to set aside and annul the amending judgment and to reinstate the original judgment.” Id. Therefore, we vacate the September 16, 2025 amended judgment and reinstate the August 29, 2025 judgment.⁸ While Mr. Calais requests this Court affirm the validity of the September 16, 2025 judgment, he alternatively seeks a remand for consideration of attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest. We therefore grant his alternative relief. Accordingly, we vacate the September 16, 2025 amended judgment and remand the matter for the trial court to consider Mr. Calais’ request for attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest.

Reconventional Demand

Although the merits of Mr. Calais’ appeal concern the award of damages, we find a procedural issue which prevents this Court from reaching the merits of the appeal. As previously noted, Mr. Bouttee answered Mr. Calais’ petition and filed a reconventional demand. The trial court rendered a judgment that resolved the demands of Mr. Calais’ petition by awarding damages. However, while evidence was presented regarding the claims in Mr. Bouttee's reconventional demand, the judgment is silent on those claims and it is unclear whether the reconventional claims were considered by the trial court. La. C.C.P. art. 1915(C) provides:

Except as otherwise provided by law, when a court grants a judgment or summary judgment, or sustains an exception in part, as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories by or against a party, whether in an original demand, reconventional demand, cross-claim, third-party claim, or intervention, that judgment is an interlocutory judgment.

The August 29, 2025 judgment does not dispose of all the claims asserted by the parties involved. Specifically, although the judgment adjudicates Mr. Calais’ claims, it does not address Mr. Bouttee's reconventional demand. As such, the August 29, 2025 judgment is not a final appealable judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 2164 provides that “[t]he appellate court shall render any judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal.” In the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remand this matter for the trial court to consider: (1) the claims raised in Mr. Bouttee's reconventional demand and (2) Mr. Calais’ request for attorney fees, court costs and judicial interest.

Decree

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the September 16, 2025 amended judgment; reinstate the August 29, 2025 judgment; and remand the matter with instructions.

JUDGMENT VACATED; AUGUST 29, 2025 JUDGMENT REINSTATED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mr. Bouttee paid January's rent after Mr. Calais sent him a five-day notice to vacate.

2.   See Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions in Communities with Substantial or High Transmission of COVID-19 To Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 43244-01 (August 6, 2021); see also Sanford P. Shatz and Shaun Kevin Ramey, Supreme Court Strikes Down the CDC's Second Eviction Moratorium, Business Law Today (Sep. 14, 2021), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2021-september/supreme-court-strikes-down-the-cdc/.

3.   Mr. Calais instituted formal eviction proceedings in First City Court for the Parish of Orleans.

4.   Mr. Bouttee's wife, Tamika Bouttee, was named as defendant in the petition for damages but was later dismissed after the trial court granted her exception of no cause of action because she was not a named lessee.

5.   The petition for damages identifies October 2021 as the expiration date of the lease term. However, the lease provides that the lease term expires November 2021. The trial court ultimately determined that Mr. Bouttee failed to pay rent through the end of the lease term, November 2021, which the parties do not dispute.

6.   Mr. Bouttee also contended that he incurred a $600.00 restoration charge after Mr. Calais disconnected the utilities at the property and transferred the account into his own name.

7.   La. R.S. 51:1409(A) provides:Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or movable property, corporeal or incorporeal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice declared unlawful by R.S. 51:1405, may bring an action individually but not in a representative capacity to recover actual damages. If the court finds the unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice was knowingly used, after being put on notice by the attorney general, the court shall award three times the actual damages sustained. In the event that damages are awarded under this Section, the court shall award to the person bringing such action reasonable attorney fees and costs. Upon a finding by the court that an action under this Section was groundless and brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court may award to the defendant reasonable attorney fees and costs.

8.   “Generally, Louisiana only allows for an award of attorney's fees when fees are either provided for in a contractual agreement or authorized by statute.” PVCA, Inc. v. Pac. W. TD Fund, LP, 2021-0753, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/13/22), 366 So.3d 243, 248 (citation omitted). Mr. Calais sought attorney fees and costs pursuant to the lease which provides:ATTORNEY FEES: LESSEE further agrees that if any Attorney is employed to protect the rights of the LESSOR hereunder, LESSEE will pay the fee of such attorney. Such fee is hereby fixed at twenty-five (25%) percent of the amount claimed or a minimum of $400.00 whichever is greater. LESSEE further agrees to pay all court costs and sheriff's charges and all other charges involved.

Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase