Property Rights

Duck Dynasty Prevails In Beverage Dispute Because of Ambiguous Contractual Term

Published on: July 25, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

ducks_duck_duckling_bird-scaled Even celebrities must deal with the often mundane task of negotiating and signing contracts. Although it can be tempting to sign a contract without reading it in depth or consulting with a lawyer, this case illustrates the importance of understanding every term and condition of a contract because of the complexities that can arise if there are ambiguous terms.

Duck Commander Inc. is owned by the Robertson family, who starred in the reality TV show Duck Dynasty. Initially, they made and sold duck calls and other related equipment. However, they ventured into the beverage industry partly because one of the family members, Si Robertson, liked iced tea. Subsequently, Chinook USA (a company that manufactures bottles and sells ready-to-drink beverages) and Duck Commander entered into a Licensing Agreement where Chinook would distribute Duck Commander branded iced tea.

After Duck Commander signed the agreement with Chinook, Duck Commander signed two other contracts involving beverage sales. The first contract was with Go-Time Energy, where Go-Time Energy had the three-year exclusive right to manufacture, license, and sell Duck Commander-branded energy shots. Duck Commander also agreed with Checkered Flag to sell Duck Commander-branded vitamin water.

What amount of force is allowed when restraining an inmate?

Published on: July 22, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

prison_robben_island_south-scaled The burden of proof lies heavily on claimants to establish the elements of the claim they bring forward. Failing to do so can result in the dismissal of the charge. In the case of George Preston, a prisoner in a Louisiana jail, his complaint against Lieutenant Hicks and four state correctional officers for excessive use of force highlights the importance of meeting the requirements to substantiate a claim. Analyzing the alleged violation of Preston’s Eighth Amendment rights, the court carefully considered the evidence and ultimately decided to dismiss some claims while allowing others to proceed.

George Preston, a prisoner in a Louisiana jail, filed a complaint against Lieutenant Hicks and four state correctional officers for excessive use of force, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. The incident occurred when an officer opened an inmate’s cell. When the door opened, Preston rushed in and allegedly tried to hit the prisoner. The Sergeant on duty called for help from Lieutenant Bowie, Lieutenant Hicks, Sergeant Dauzat, and Sergeant Augustine. The officers then worked together to restrain Preston.

Preston claimed Lieutenant Hicks knocked him to the floor and elbowed him repeatedly in his face. While on the floor, Sergeant Augustine pinned his left arm behind him while Lieutenant Hicks pulled and twisted his right arm. Preston alleged Hick’s actions caused his shoulder to dislocate. Preston claimed he only entered the cell as a joke and that the officer retaliated excessively.

Louisiana Inmate Failed to Establish Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

Published on: July 18, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

prison_prison_window_window-scaled When a prison official fails to provide necessary medical care to an inmate, legal action may be pursued against the individual. However, claiming deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs requires meeting specific criteria. As exemplified by the case below, these factors are crucial in preventing individuals from bringing frivolous claims against government officials, ensuring that legitimate cases receive the attention they deserve.

In this case, Gregory Bailey, a Louisiana prisoner, filed a lawsuit against several defendants, including East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, the prison warden, the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, a judge, and Dr. Vincent Leggio, alleging acts of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed Bailey’s claims, stating a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). This appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal follows.

In his appeal, Bailey moved to progress in forma pauperis, thereby challenging the District Court’s decision that his appeal was not accepted in good faith. The Court of Appeal then reviewed Bailey’s good faith claims regarding whether his legal points were substantiated on their merits and not frivolous. See Howard v. King.

Dealing with Flood Damaged Property? Be Prepared to Show Causation

Published on: July 15, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

flood_fields_pasture_trees-scaled The story of an underdog seeking justice against a powerful corporation is a familiar legal narrative. And while we may be inclined to root for the little guy, that does not relieve him from proving he has a valid case.

In Louisiana, a plaintiff will not see his case go to trial if it lacks support to overcome a motion for summary judgment. The opposing side will look for holes in the plaintiff’s claim, posing the question: if you have not produced facts suggesting I committed this offense, how will you obtain the requisite evidence to prove it at trial? Accordingly, every “essential element” of a claim requires factual support to serve as a basis for deliberation at trial. La. C.C.P. art 996(c)(2).

The Mitchells, owners of a Shapes Gym in the Parish of Ascension, faced this “make it or break it” moment of summary judgment in their case against neighboring businesses, Wal-Mart, and Aaron’s. The Mitchells alleged that the neighbors’ improperly designed and maintained stormwater drainage systems were to blame for six inches of rainwater that flooded the gym in 2009 and again during litigation of the first flood claim in 2014.

The Importance of Changing a Life Insurance Beneficiary After Divorce

Published on: July 10, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

car_divorce_netherlands_joke-scaled Divorce can be tumultuous, marked by significant stress and numerous life changes. Amidst the emotional and practical adjustments, it is crucial not to overlook a critical task: updating the beneficiary of your life insurance policy. In Claiborne Parish, a compelling case serves as a cautionary tale, underscoring the paramount importance of understanding and verifying your designated beneficiary on all insurance plans. The story unravels the unsettling reality that the proceeds from your life insurance policy may not end up in the hands of the intended recipient.

In this case, Hillie Patrick Cox took out a whole-life insurance policy with Southern Farm Bureau, where he listed his mother, Ruby G. Cox, as a beneficiary. Later, he amended the beneficiary to list his wife, Connie Gonzales Cox. Seven years later, however, Hillie and Connie obtained a divorce judgment. Hillie then died approximately 14 years later without executing another change of beneficiary form.

Southern Farm Bureau subsequently filed a petition for concursus in the 2nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Claiborne, claiming that a judgment of possession awarded Ruby usufruct over the entire estate and recognized Debra Cox Diffey, Hillie’s sister as the sole surviving heir. As a result of the judgment, Ruby, Debra, and Connie all presented claims for the insurance proceeds.

Time Limitations for Lawsuits: Paternity Claims in Succession Cases

Published on: July 8, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

time_clock_movement_motion-scaled Although there is a common saying, “good things come to those who wait,” that is not true in the context of filing lawsuits, especially if they involve establishing paternity after your purported father passed away. Louisiana law has strict requirements that establish the time by which you must file a lawsuit. Your lawsuit will be dismissed if you do not comply with these requirements. What happens if the law governing how long you have to bring your lawsuit changes?

William Dalton Pelt died without a will at his Vernon Parish, Louisiana home. His brothers and sisters filed a petition to have Barbara Lee Pelt Cooley appointed as administratrix of his succession. In the petition, they claimed Pelt had never been married and had no children. The trial court signed an order appointing Cooley as administratrix of his succession. Later, Kristina Wright petitioned to intervene in Pelt’s succession, claiming he was her father. Wright claimed her mother had had an affair with Pelt, and she was conceived during their relationship. She wanted recognition for her rights to Pelt’s estate and to have Cooley removed as the administratrix.

Pelt’s brothers and sisters filed an exception of prescription. At a hearing, the trial court agreed with Pelt’s brothers and sisters and dismissed Wright’s petition. Wright appealed, claiming the trial court erred in not correctly applying La. C.C. art. 197 to establish paternity.

Resolving Family Business Disputes: Navigating Complexities and Seeking Resolution

Published on: July 3, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

family_family_posing_psychotherapy-scaled Family businesses can present challenging legal issues. Although you might feel like you can trust your family members to do the right thing, this is not always true, especially when large sums of money are involved. This case illustrates the complexities that resulted from agreements related to ownership of a family business, which was only resolved following multiple appeals.

Sam Broussard Jr. (BR) and his three sisters each owned 25% of Sam Broussard Trucking (“SBT”). After their parents died, BR was the president of SBT. His sisters agreed to make him the majority owner of SBT. Each sister received a Stock Redemption Agreement (“SRA”). Under the SRA, each of the three sisters agreed to transfer 171.5 shares of SRT stock back to SRT for $200,000.

One of his sisters, Guillory, filed a lawsuit against BR, claiming he had not kept his promises related to the SRA. At trial, the jury found BR had not given Guillory sufficient profits, as promised. The jury also found BR had violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, La. R.S. 51:1401. The jury awarded Guillory $69,084 for this violation. The jury also found Guillory’s error concerning the SRA invalidated it.

Can A Louisiana Court Disregard A Special Master’s Report?

Published on: June 30, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

restoration_work_parthenon_facade-1-scaled One tool courts can use to manage litigation is a Special Master. A Special Master issues reports that a court can consider when ruling on a case. However, what happens if a court disregards the recommendations in a Special Master’s report? This situation raises intriguing questions about the authority and discretion of the court, leaving us to ponder the implications of such actions, as discussed in the case below.

Two attorneys – Patrick Kehoe, Jr. and Michael Rodriguez – entered into an oral fee-sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Rodriguez would receive half of the fees on personal injury cases from Kehoe that were resolved in trial or settled. Kehoe would finance the cases, and Rodriguez performed the required legal work.

Rodriguez had to go to an inpatient facility because of his alcoholism. When he entered treatment, he had approximately sixteen unresolved cases. Rodriguez never returned to working with Kehoe. Rodriguez sought payment for his work on the sixteen unresolved cases. Kehoe proposed a fee-split agreement where Rodriguez would receive 20% of the collected attorney’s fees. Rodriguez at first rejected the proposal but later agreed to it. However, Rodriguez and Kehoe continued to dispute the fees owed.

Lost in Translation: A Quarter-Million-Dollar Contract Mistake Exposes Shared Responsibility

Published on: June 29, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

binding_contract_contract_secure-scaled Imagine, for a moment, you’re organizing a large-scale event with a long checklist of details to manage. Now imagine missing one tiny detail and having it cost you a whopping quarter-million dollars! That’s precisely the scenario that unfolded for Star Financial Services, Inc., a prominent ATM operator, in their dealings with Cardtronics, USA, Inc. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cardtronics.

Star Financial operates a vast network of ATMs across Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. They signed a contract with Cardtronics to handle the electronic transfer of funds associated with their ATMs to keep the wheels turning. The setup process for this arrangement required Star Financial to provide Cardtronics with specific account details. A system that worked smoothly until it didn’t.

In 2015, Star Financial submitted the setup forms for three new ATMs. However, they mistakenly provided an account number belonging to a third-party merchant instead of their Settlement Account. Realizing their mistake, they sent a correction the next day, but Cardtronics only corrected one of the three ATMs. This discrepancy led to $250,000 being directed to the wrong account.

Unclaimed Vacation: Resigning from Your Job with Unused Day

Published on: June 26, 2023 | By Berniard Law Firm

vacation_beach_maldives_657311-scaled We all cherish the idea of collecting vacation days, envisioning the blissful trips we’ll take in the future. But what if you find yourself resigning from your job with a surplus of accrued vacation days that you haven’t had the chance to use?

David Bodenheimer had worked for Carrollton Pest Control and Termite Company (“Carrolton”) for twenty-three years when he signed to resign. He accrued 1.25 vacation days per month. When he resigned from Carrollton, Bodenheimer claimed he still had twelve accrued vacation days for that year and 6.25 days from the prior year, totaling 18.25 of accrued, unused vacation days. Upon his resignation, Carrollton only paid Bodenheimer for 3.25 of the 6.25 days he had accrued in the prior year. When his written demands for payment for his additional accrued vacation days proved futile, Bodenheimer filed a lawsuit against Carrollton for his unpaid vacation under La. R.S. 23:631 and 23:632.

At trial, the only witnesses were Bodenheimer and the owner of Carrollton. Other evidence included Carrollton’s policy manual and Bodenheimer’s payroll record. Carrollton and its owner claimed employees such as Bodenheimer had to use all of their fifteen vacation days in a given calendar year. If not, they would lose the vacation days in the next calendar year. The trial court ruled in favor of Carrollton, finding Bodenheimer had read and understood the applicable policy regarding using vacation days. Bodenheimer subsequently appealed.