Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-3096.
April 27, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, motion for reconsideration of denial of motion to amend or alter order and reasons granting summary judgment, and a post-judgment motion for reconsideration and alteration. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motions.
I. Background and Discussion
On May 25, 1967, Shell Oil Company and Joseph F. Wegmann, Jr. entered into a lease agreement of immovable property located at 4400 Clearview Parkway in Metairie, Louisiana, under which Wegmann leased the property to Shell. Plaintiff, Motiva, is the assignee of Shell's interest in the lease, while defendants, Joseph F. Wegmann III and Susan W. Collins, are the successors-in-interest to the original lessor. The lease provided an option to buy the property for the price of $175,000, at any point during the contract. In 1967, when the contract was entered, the property was appraised at a value of $105,600. In 1969, the parties amended the lease to include an additional adjacent parcel of land and the entire property was appraised at $148,300. Under the amended lease, the rental payments increased but the terms of the original leases were otherwise ratified and confirmed. The property was improved with a functioning gasoline station.
Plaintiff exercised the purchase option by sending letters to defendants dated May 1, 2000 and October 11, 2000, asserting that plaintiff wished to exercise Shell's option under the lease to purchase the property for $175,000. On August 20, 2000, the property was appraised at the price of $595,000. Defendants refused to honor the option.
Plaintiff filed suit demanding specific performance under the lease and its option to buy. Defendants claimed that the defense of lesion beyond moiety applied to the option and therefore, they were not required to sell the property for the $175,000 option price. On January 18, 2001, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. On March 12, 2001, the Court also denied defendants' motion to amend or alter the order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. The Court treated this motion as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). On March 22, 2001, the Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings, for reconsideration of the Court's denial of the motion to amend or alter the granting of summary judgment, and have filed a post-judgment motion for reconsideration and alteration. The Court has already granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, denied defendants' motion for reconsideration, and entered judgment in this matter. The Court DENIES defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, for reconsideration of the Court's denial of the motion to amend or alter the granting of summary judgment, and the post-judgment motion for reconsideration and alteration.