Appealed from the Third Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Union, Louisiana Trial Court No. 45, 472 Honorable
Thomas W. Rogers, Judge
CARLETON HEBERT & WITTENBRINK, LLC By: Stephen C.
Carleton Victor R. Loraso, III Carmen T. Hebert Counsel for
& WARNER, L.L.C. By: Vicki C. Warner Counsel for
PITMAN, STONE, and COX, JJ.
Advantage Roofing & Construction of Louisiana, Inc.
("Advantage II"), and James E. Strawbridge appeal
the trial court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee
RSI Building Products, LLC ("RSI"). For the
following reasons, we affirm.
February 5, 2013, RSI filed a petition against Advantage II
and Strawbridge, individually and as guarantor, alleging that
they signed a "Customer Credit Application and Personal
Guarantee" (the "Application") with RSI, but
refused to pay the balance of $36, 353.41. RSI requested 18%
interest, court costs and attorney fees.
March 14, 2013, Advantage II and Strawbridge filed a
peremptory exception of no cause of action. They stated that
RSI entered into the Application with Advantage Roofing and
Construction, Inc. ("Advantage I"), which is a
different company from Advantage II. At the time RSI and
Advantage I signed the Application, Advantage II did not
exist. They argued that the petition did not state a cause of
action against Strawbridge because he signed the Application
on behalf of Advantage I, as a personal guarantor, not on
behalf of Advantage II.
20, 2013, RSI amended its petition to add Advantage I as a
3, 2013, Advantage II and Strawbridge filed a peremptory
exception of no cause of action. They argued that RSI cannot
utilize the Application that was executed on behalf of a
distinct corporate entity, i.e., Advantage I, to back door
personal and corporate liability for a different company,
i.e., Advantage II.
August 26, 2013, RSI filed an opposition to the peremptory
exception of no cause of action.
January 2, 2014, Advantage II and Strawbridge filed an answer
and reconventional demand. They denied the allegations made
in RSI's petition and asserted affirmative defenses. In
the reconventional demand, they stated that RSI provided
materials to Advantage II and that the materials were damaged
in transit. They requested that damages from RSI be awarded
as a complete offset to any amounts awarded to RSI on its
original demand and as an additional monetary recovery
against RSI in an amount to be determined at trial.
January 21, 2014, RSI filed an answer and denied the