Preview:

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NICHOLAS GENTILE                                                                *   NO. 2011-CA-0475
VERSUS                                                                          *
                                                                                    COURT OF APPEAL
JOSEPH COX                                                                      *
                                                                                    FOURTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                *
                                                                                    STATE OF LOUISIANA
                                                                                *
APPEAL FROM
FIRST CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS
NO. 2011-479, SECTION “A”
Honorable Monique G. Morial, Judge
Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr.
(Court composed of Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr., Judge Edwin A. Lombard, and
Judge Paul A. Bonin)
Benjamin Misko
THE LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN MISKO, LLC
P. O. Box 19390
New Orleans, LA 70179
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE NICOLAS GENTILE
Joseph Cox
637 St. Peter Street, 3rd Floor
New Orleans, LA   70116
IN PROPER PERSON DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
AFFIRMED
OCTOBER 12, 2011




On appeal, Joseph Cox seeks review of a judgment granting Nicholas
Gentile’s rule for possession of premises and ordering him to vacate the rented
premises within twenty-four hours.  For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 4, 2008, Joseph Cox signed a rental agreement for the use of
property located at 637 St. Peter Street, 3rd Floor, Apt. B, in New Orleans,
Louisiana from Nicholas Gentile.    The amount of rent was $800 for the first three
months starting November 1, 2008, with rent increasing to $1,000 per month on
February 1, 2009.  The rental agreement further provided “[t]enant retains a five
year lease and five year option.  Landlord has option of $100 monthly increase
after 2 years and every 2 years thereafter.”  At trial, Mr. Cox testified that he pays
Mr. Gentile with cash or a money order each month but that Mr. Gentile refused to
accept the cash in January and February of 2011.  Mr. Gentile testified that
“[e]very time I try to get the rent from him, I hear the exact same thing that you
heard from him every time.  The rent was raised last February and he refused to
pay the increased rent.  He hasn’t paid January or February.  I need him out.”
1




Following a hearing on the rule for possession of premises1, the trial judge signed a
judgment on February 24, 2011 ordering Mr. Cox to vacate the premises within
twenty-four hours.  Mr. Cox now appeals this ruling.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of appellate review of factual findings in a civil action is a two-
part test: (1) the appellate court must find from the record there is a reasonable
factual basis for the finding of the factfinder, and (2) the appellate court must
further determine the record establishes the finding is not manifestly erroneous
(clearly wrong). Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987).  Factual findings
should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d
840, 844 (La.1989).  If the trial court's findings are reasonable in light of the record
reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse. Sistler v. Liberty Mut.
Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1112 (La.1990).
DISCUSSION
A lease is a synallagmatic contract, to which consent alone is sufficient, and
by which one party (the lessor) gives to the other (the lessee) the use and
enjoyment of a thing in exchange for a rent.    La. C.C. art. 2668.  The lessee is
bound to pay the rent according to the agreed terms.  La. C.C. art. 2683.  If the
lessee fails to pay the rent when it becomes due, the lessor may dissolve the lease
and regain possession of the property as provided by law. La. C.C. art. 2704.
1 Mr. Cox chose to appear in proper person at the hearing on this matter as he does now on appeal.
2




When a lessor finds that a lessee's right of occupancy has ceased because of an
action or inaction of the lessee, the lessor may file an eviction proceeding.  La.
C.C.P. art. 4701.  In the eviction proceeding, the lessor may rule the lessee into
court wherein the lessee must show cause why he should not be ordered to deliver
possession of the premises to the lessor.  La. C.C.P. art. 4731.  If the trial court
finds the lessor is entitled to possession of the premises, a judgment of eviction
ordering the lessee to deliver possession of the premises to the lessor shall be
rendered by the court.  La. C.C.P. art. 4732.
Under the terms of the lease in the instant case, the rent was due on a month
to month basis.  It is clear from the record before us that Mr. Cox breached the
terms of the lease by failing to pay the rent in January 2011, and February 2011.
Because Mr. Cox failed to pay rent, Mr. Gentile may dissolve the lease and regain
possession of the property.
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED
3

Download 287995.pdf

Louisiana Law