Affirmation of Contractual Damages and Limits on Quasi-Contractual Restitution in Maxine Thomas v. Housing Louisiana Now

Affirmation of Contractual Damages and Limits on Quasi-Contractual Restitution in Maxine Thomas v. Housing Louisiana Now

Introduction

This commentary examines the Louisiana Supreme Court’s per curiam decision in Maxine Thomas v. Housing Louisiana Now, L.L.C. (No. 2024-C-00631), handed down on March 21, 2025. At issue was a home‐repair contract between homeowner Maxine Thomas (“Plaintiff”) and contractor Housing Louisiana Now, LLC (“HLN”), which Plaintiff alleged was breached through nonperformance and delay. After the trial court awarded her $83,597.03 in damages, HLN appealed; the Fourth Circuit affirmed; and on certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court the judgments were once again upheld.

The case crystallizes two key issues:

  • Whether HLN’s failure to complete timely repairs constituted a breach of contract entitling Plaintiff to recover her full expenditure;
  • Whether a homeowner, having received proper performance from a third‐party subcontractor, can nonetheless recover the entire payment from the original contractor under quasi-contractual restitution principles (La. Civ. Code art. 2299).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, per curiam, affirmed both the district court’s finding that HLN breached its repair contract and the award of $83,597.03 in damages. The Court found no error in the lower courts’ determinations on nonperformance and delay and denied as moot Plaintiff’s procedural motion to dismiss HLN’s application. Dissents by Justices Crain, Hughes and McCallum argued that the award constituted a double recovery and that the majority overlooked controlling Civil Code provisions governing restitution.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Though the majority opinion cites broadly to the record and briefs, it does not expressly rely on specific past decisions. The dissent, however, invokes:

  • La. Civ. Code art. 1994 & art. 2769 – Requiring proof that damages were actually caused by nonperformance.
  • Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 193 So. 3d 1110 (La. 2015) – Emphasizing that contractual remedies and damage proofs are distinct from quasi-contractual claims.
  • La. Civ. Code art. 2299 (“Enrichment Without Cause”) – The basis for a restitution remedy where a person has received a payment “not owed” to him.
  • La. Civ. Code art. 2300 – Clarifying that payments made to discharge an existing contract are not “not owed.”
  • La. Civ. Code art. 1854–1855 – Addressing third‐party performance and extinguishment of obligations.
  • Treatises and commentary: Litvinoff & Scalise, 6 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Law of Obligations—Putting in Default Damages § 5.7; Alain Levasseur, Louisiana Law of Unjust Enrichment in Quasi-Contracts.

2. Legal Reasoning

The majority’s reasoning is terse:

  • It reviewed the record, briefs and oral arguments and found no reversible error.
  • It held that HLN breached the contract and that the damages awarded below were justified.
  • It denied procedural challenges as moot in light of its substantive affirmance.

The dissenting opinion (Justice Crain) contends:

  • Plaintiff obtained the full cost of repairs despite receiving performance by a third party; this yields an impermissible windfall.
  • La. Civ. Code arts. 2299–2300 (restitution for “payments not owed”) do not apply to payments made pursuant to a valid contract.
  • The proper contract remedy should govern, not a quasi-contractual restitution claim.
  • HLN’s obligations were extinguished once the subcontractor completed the work (arts. 1854–1855).

3. Impact

This decision will guide future Louisiana litigation by reaffirming:

  • Primacy of Contractual Remedies: Claims under a valid contract control; quasi-contractual restitution cannot be grafted onto consensual obligations.
  • Proof-of-Damages Requirement: A party must identify and prove the actual loss caused by nonperformance; full payment refunds are inappropriate when work is performed.
  • Third-Party Performance: Payment to an obligee discharges the obligor’s duty if the work is properly completed—even by another contractor.
Lower courts will be reminded to distinguish carefully between:
  • Contractual breach damages (La. Civ. Code arts. 1994, 2769).
  • Unjust enrichment or restitution claims (La. Civ. Code arts. 2299–2305).

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Breach of Contract: When one party fails to perform a duty agreed upon, the non-breaching party may recover losses actually caused by that failure.
  • Quasi-Contractual Restitution: A legal remedy under “Obligations Arising Without Agreement,” allowing recovery of payments made “not owed” to prevent unjust enrichment.
  • Enrichment Without Cause (Art. 2299): Applies only when no valid contractual obligation exists, not when performance under contract is at issue.
  • Performance by a Third Person (Art. 1855): If a subcontractor properly completes the work, the original contractor’s duty is discharged, unless the obligee insisted on performance by the original obligor alone.
  • Double Recovery Prohibition: A plaintiff may not receive both the benefit of work performed and a full refund of the payment made for that work.

Conclusion

Maxine Thomas v. Housing Louisiana Now reaffirms that Louisiana courts will honor the agreement of the parties and the carefully balanced remedies provided in the Civil Code. Contractual breach damages remain the exclusive remedy when an obligee has paid in accordance with a valid contract and received performance—even if by a third party. Courts must resist efforts to convert such disputes into unjust-enrichment claims, thereby avoiding double recovery and preserving the integrity of Louisiana’s law of obligations.

Case Details

Comments