Davis v. Parker ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    __________________________
    No. 96-30929
    __________________________
    WILLIAM C. DAVIS,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    Cross-Appellant
    versus
    ERNEST L. PARKER,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Cross-Appellee
    ___________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    For the Western District of Louisiana
    (Nos. 91-CV-2493, 93-CV-759)
    ___________________________________________________
    May 12, 1998
    Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
    WIENER, Circuit Judge:*
    Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Ernest L. Parker, Esq.,
    appeals   a   jury   verdict   in   favor    of   Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-
    Appellant, William C. Davis, whose claims had their genesis in a
    written asset transfer agreement between the two parties.            Davis,
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    a long-time Louisiana resident who had moved to Texas, brought suit
    in federal district court in Louisiana on diversity jurisdiction
    after Parker refused to return to Davis the assets in question ——
    capital stock in a closely-held Louisiana corporation —— that he
    had transferred to Parker in accordance with that agreement.              The
    case was tried to a jury, which found that —— notwithstanding the
    fact   that    the    asset   transfer   agreement   contained   no   express
    stipulation obligating Parker to return Davis’s stock —— Davis had
    retained ownership of his stock vis-à-vis Parker, as well as the
    right to recover it, by virtue of Parker’s oral promise to hold the
    stock other than as owner and return it to Davis on request.              The
    jury awarded Davis monetary damages consisting of (1) $175,000 for
    emotional distress, anguish, or inconvenience that he experienced
    as a result of Parker’s refusal to return the stock; (2) attorneys’
    fees as provided in Davis’s contingent fee agreement with his
    attorneys; and (3) $1,026,951.50 for loss of the benefits that he
    would have received had he held the Campbell Wells stock or for
    benefits that Parker wrongfully received as a result of his refusal
    to return Davis’s stock.         In keeping with the jury’s verdict, the
    district      court   rendered   judgment    for   Davis,   replicating   the
    particulars of the verdict and declaring Davis to be the owner of
    the stock in question or its value as of the close of business on
    the last business day before trial commenced.           The district court
    also assessed costs against Parker, purported to include expert
    2
    witness fees.
    Parker appeals the district court’s denial of his post-trial
    motion for judgment as a matter of law (j.m.l.) or, alternatively,
    a new trial.    Parker urged his motion on grounds that, inter alia,
    (1) the evidence conclusively established that Davis entered into
    the asset transfer agreement for the illicit purpose of defrauding
    his creditors, so that, as a matter of law, Davis cannot recover
    from Parker; (2) the jury’s finding that a contract existed between
    Davis and Parker, whereby Parker agreed to hold and return Campbell
    Wells stock to Davis, is erroneous as a matter of law, as such an
    agreement must be in writing to be enforceable; (3) Davis’s claims,
    as tried, were time-barred under Louisiana’s prescriptive period
    for legal malpractice actions; (4) the district court erroneously
    permitted Davis to call two of Parker’s former clients to testify
    in rebuttal; and (5) the jury’s awards of (a) nonpecuniary damages,
    (b) attorneys’ fees, and (c) “excess distributions” were without
    legal foundation or sufficient evidentiary basis.              Parker also
    contends that the trial court erred in its assessment of costs
    against him and in its valuation of Davis’s Campbell Wells stock.
    Davis cross-appeals the court’s denial of his motion to alter or
    amend the judgment.
    Finding no reversible error in the denial of Parker’s motions
    or in the court’s assessment of Davis’s costs and the valuation of
    his   stock,   we   affirm   except   to   the   limited   extent   that   we
    (1) reverse the award of emotional damages, (2) modify the award of
    3
    attorneys’ fees to reflect the effect of our reversal of the
    emotional damages award, and (3) vacate the award of costs to the
    extent, if any, that expert witness fees were included and remand
    this issue for further consideration by the district court.           As for
    Davis’s cross-appeal, we make a minor adjustment in the judgment of
    the district court but otherwise affirm, thereby denying the cross-
    appeal.    In sum, the judgment of the district court is reversed in
    part, vacated in part, modified in part, and —— as modified ——
    affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
    opinion and, ultimately, for entry of a revised judgment for Davis
    reflecting the dispositions we make today.
    I
    FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
    Davis and Parker were longtime personal friends and business
    associates when Parker offered Davis an interest in Campbell Wells
    Corp. (“Campbell Wells”) —— a company that operated an oil field
    waste disposal facility.         Parker, who was also Davis’s attorney,
    had previously invested in several business ventures with Davis.
    Campbell    Wells   had   come    to   Parker’s   attention   when   he   was
    approached by Logan Nichols, also an attorney and a law school
    classmate of Parker’s.      Nichols sought Parker’s aid in finding a
    buyer or buyers on behalf of the Campbells, who owned and operated
    the facility.       The Campbells had offered Nichols a substantial
    finder’s fee if he could locate a buyer, which fee Nichols proposed
    sharing with Parker as consideration for his assistance.
    4
    Parker in turn enlisted the help of Richard Barnett, a client
    of his and a petroleum engineer with connections in the oil patch.
    Barnett knew several potential investors but wanted to learn more
    about   the   facility   and   assess    its    value   before   making   any
    recommendations.    After visiting the disposal facility, Barnett
    became convinced that Campbell Wells represented an attractive
    investment opportunity and suggested to Parker and Nichols that the
    three of them buy the business themselves rather than brokering it.
    Presumably with the assent of Nichols and Barnett, Parker invited
    Davis to join the threesome as an equal partner in the purchase of
    Campbell Wells.
    The four men bought all issued and outstanding stock of the
    corporation in September 1985.          They also formed a partnership,
    CAMPCO—1985, to acquire the immovable property on which the waste
    disposal facility was located.      Their acquisitions were funded by
    a million dollar loan from Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. of Lafayette
    (“Guaranty Bank”) and by promissory notes totaling $1,052,000,
    payable to the Campbells. An additional $500,000 was borrowed from
    the bank to cover start-up costs.              As security for its loans,
    Guaranty Bank took a collateral first mortgage on the immovable
    property and a pledge of the capital stock in Campbell Wells; the
    Campbells’    promissory   notes   were    secured      by   a   subordinated
    mortgage. In addition, each of the four purchasers signed personal
    guaranties to Guaranty Bank and to the Campbells.
    Although Campbell Wells continued to prosper, Davis began to
    5
    experience financial difficulties with some of his other business
    ventures and by early 1986 was on the brink of bankruptcy.                      Parker
    represented Davis in an attempted work-out with his creditors, and
    also advised Davis as his friend and business partner.                          Parker
    warned Davis       that   his     creditors      might    seize    his   interest   in
    Campbell Wells and suggested that Davis transfer his interest to
    Parker.     On February 3, 1986, by a written Act of Cash Sale &
    Assumption    ——    prepared      by    Parker    ——     Davis    transferred   stock
    representing his twenty-five percent ownership interest in Campbell
    Wells to Parker. The instrument specified that Parker was assuming
    Davis’s debt and paying Davis $1000.               Davis testified that he was
    neither given a copy of the document by Parker nor advised by him
    to consult another attorney before signing it.
    This    is    the    point    at   which     the    antagonists’     respective
    versions of the saga start to diverge.              Davis testified that Parker
    agreed to hold the Campbell Wells stock “in trust” until Davis
    resolved his financial problems, orally committing to return the
    stock to Davis on request. According to Davis, Parker proposed the
    arrangement as a means of ensuring the satisfaction of their
    substantial mutual debt:          With Davis’s interest in Parker’s hands,
    they could avoid outside interference in the Campbell Wells venture
    by preventing a “race to the courthouse” by Davis’s creditors.
    More importantly, in avoiding seizure by one anxious creditor, cash
    flow from the investment could be used to pay off more debt.                        In
    6
    stark contrast, Parker testified that he acquired full ownership of
    Davis’s stock as consideration for assuming the debt that Davis had
    incurred in his acquisition of Campbell Wells stock.
    Davis    was    eventually     successful     in   working    out   of    his
    financial straits and avoiding bankruptcy.                Meanwhile, Campbell
    Wells    continued   to   thrive,     and   in   June   1990,    the   remaining
    shareholders of record —— Parker and Nichols —— agreed to merge
    Campbell Wells with Sanifill, Inc. (“Sanifill”).1               Pursuant to the
    merger agreement, Parker surrendered all outstanding stock in
    Campbell Wells in exchange for Sanifill stock.2
    Davis testified that he had become concerned about Parker’s
    control over the transferred shares as early as 1988, well before
    the Sanifill    merger.       Davis    mentioned    the   arrangement     to    an
    attorney representing him on unrelated matters, who advised Davis
    to discuss his Campbell Wells interest with Parker.                    Some time
    later, Davis broached the subject with Parker during a meeting in
    Lafayette, asking for Parker’s reassurance that their arrangement
    would be honored.         According to Davis’s testimony, Parker was
    initially very angry at him for having discussed the matter with
    another attorney, but Parker assured Davis the following day that
    his stock would eventually be returned.
    1
    Coincidentally, the fourth partner, Barnett, had transferred
    his interest in Campbell Wells to Parker, also in February 1986.
    2
    See infra note 106.
    7
    Davis testified that he had several subsequent discussions
    with Parker concerning the state of Campbell Wells’ affairs, each
    discussion characterized by Davis as having included Parker’s
    reassurance that the business was going well and that Davis could
    count on recovering his interest. In September 1990, following the
    Sanifill merger, Parker contacted Davis at his home in Austin and
    scheduled a visit.         Davis assumed that Parker had arranged the
    meeting    to   conclude   their    business   under      the    asset    transfer
    agreement, but Parker frustrated Davis’s expectations by avoiding
    any discussion of Campbell Wells.          When Davis eventually broached
    the subject, Parker announced that he intended to keep Davis’s
    proportionate share of the Sanifill stock acquired in the merger,
    and a heated argument ensued.
    This lawsuit was filed in November 1991.                      In it, Davis
    asserted claims for breach of contract, rescission, detrimental
    reliance, and nullity, and sought to enforce the written-and-oral
    agreement or to rescind it with an accounting.                    Alternatively,
    Davis sought     to   annul   the   written    agreement        under    which   his
    interest in Campbell Wells had been transferred.                Parker moved for
    summary judgment on the ground that Davis’s claims were time-barred
    under   Louisiana’s     prescriptive       period   for    legal        malpractice
    actions.    The district court granted Parker’s motion and dismissed
    Davis’s suit with prejudice.          On appeal from that dismissal, we
    reversed and remanded (Parker I), holding that the prescriptive
    period for legal malpractice actions was not applicable to Davis’s
    8
    claims.3
    On remand, the case was tried to a jury.         A number of mid-
    trial motions by Parker were denied and, following the close of the
    evidence, each party made a motion for j.m.l., both of which the
    court denied.        The jury returned a verdict in favor of Davis on all
    causes of action submitted,4 and judgment was entered by the
    district court on May 31, 1996, in accordance with the verdict.
    Parker filed post-trial motions under Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure (F.R.C.P.) 50 and 59, which the trial court denied. Davis
    filed a F.R.C.P. Rule 59 motion seeking to amend some aspects of
    the judgment, but the court denied this motion as well.           Parker
    timely appealed, and Davis timely cross-appealed.
    II
    ANALYSIS
    A.   STANDARD   OF   REVIEW
    We review the denial of a motion for j.m.l. de novo, viewing
    all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.5
    We will conclude that the motion should have been granted only when
    “the evidence at trial points so strongly and overwhelmingly in the
    3
    Davis v. Parker, 
    58 F.3d 183
    , 189-90 (5th Cir. 1995).
    4
    Davis apparently amended his pleadings on remand, adding a
    claim for fraud.    The jury did not reach Davis’s detrimental
    reliance claim as it found that a valid oral retransfer agreement
    existed and was breached.
    5
    Burroughs v. FPP Operating Partners, L.P., 
    28 F.3d 543
    , 546
    (5th Cir. 1994).
    9
    movant’s favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary
    conclusion.”6      The “decision to grant [a j.m.l.] . . . is not a
    matter of discretion, but a conclusion of law based upon a finding
    that there is insufficient evidence to create a fact question for
    the jury.”7
    We review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend
    for abuse of discretion.8          We also review the denial of a motion
    for new trial for abuse of discretion; new trials should not be
    granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum, the verdict is
    against     the   great   weight    of   the     evidence.9   And   we   review
    evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, but even then we will
    reverse only if the erroneous ruling affects a substantial right of
    a party.10 Finally, we review an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
    for abuse of discretion.11
    B.   UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT,   OR   IMMORAL PURPOSE
    Parker argues that, in light of the jury’s determination that
    6
    Omnitech Int’l v. Clorox Co., 
    11 F.3d 1316
    , 1323 (5th Cir.),
    cert. denied, 
    513 U.S. 815
    , 
    115 S. Ct. 71
    , 
    130 L. Ed. 2d 26
     (1994).
    7
    
    Id.
     (quoting In re Letterman Bros. Energy Sec. Litig., 
    799 F.2d 967
    , 972 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 
    480 U.S. 918
    , 
    107 S. Ct. 1373
    , 
    94 L. Ed. 2d 689
     (1987)).
    8
    Martinez v. Johnson, 
    104 F.3d 769
    , 771 (5th Cir.), cert.
    denied, 
    118 S. Ct. 195
    , 
    139 L. Ed. 2d 133
     (1997).
    9
    Dawson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 
    978 F.2d 205
    , 208 (5th Cir.
    1992).
    10
    Marcel v. Placid Oil Co., 
    11 F.3d 563
    , 566 (5th Cir. 1994).
    11
    Nickel v. Estate of Estes, 
    122 F.3d 294
    , 301 (5th Cir. 1997).
    10
    Davis      actually   continued    to   own     the     Campbell     Wells   stock
    transferred under the Act of Cash Sale & Assumption by virtue of
    Parker’s oral promise to return Davis’s stock on request, the
    evidence at trial conclusively established that the agreement was
    executed to place Davis’s interest in Campbell Wells beyond the
    reach of his creditors.           As such, urges Parker, the purported
    written-and-oral agreement, found by the jury to exist, cannot be
    enforced because it was entered into for the illicit purpose of
    defrauding Davis’s creditors.           Thus, concludes Parker, Davis can
    recover nothing under the agreement and the jury verdict cannot be
    permitted to stand.
    In support of his argument, Parker invites our attention to
    several Louisiana cases from the nineteenth century that stand for
    the   proposition     that   contracts       executed    for   the    purpose   of
    defrauding creditors are unenforceable.12             These cases were decided
    12
    See Meyer v. Farmer, 
    36 La. Ann. 785
     (1884); Bernard v.
    Auguste, 
    1 La. Ann. 69
     (1846) (dismissing plaintiff’s rescission
    action —— brought on ground that defendant’s failure to give
    consideration for transfer of plaintiff’s property rendered sale a
    simulation —— based on evidence that plaintiff was only titleholder
    of property, true owner having purchased property in plaintiff’s
    name to screen it from creditors); Puckett v. Clarke, 
    3 Rob. 81
    (1842) (holding that plaintiff could not recover property from
    defendant when the two had arranged defendant’s purchase of
    property at a sham sheriff’s sale with understanding that defendant
    would return property to plaintiff after danger of seizure by
    plaintiff’s creditors had subsided); Gravier’s Curator v. Carraby’s
    Ex’or, 
    17 La. 118
    , 127 (1841) (refusing to enforce agreement and
    denying plaintiff’s recovery of property conveyed to defendant as
    security for defendant’s loans where parties held out conveyance as
    transfer of title for purpose of concealing property from
    plaintiff’s judgment creditors).
    11
    under the rationale that courts of law will not give effect to
    contracts having an unlawful or immoral purpose.13   As courts will
    not mediate disputes “between joint venturers in iniquity,”14 the
    parties to such contracts have no recourse at law against one
    another.     Under the Roman Law maxim, “In pari causa turpitudinem
    potior est conditio possidentis”15 —— in case of equal wrongdoing,
    the one in possession is in a better position —— courts will “leave
    [the] property where the dishonest acts of the parties have placed
    it.”16
    Parker argued to the district court that this line of cases
    bars recovery under the well-known “unclean hands” canon which
    devolved from English equity:      “One who has unclean hands or is
    13
    Boatner v. Yarborough, 
    12 La. Ann. 249
    , 251 (1857) (“The law,
    whose mission is to right the innocent and to enforce the
    performance of licit obligations only, leaves parties who traffic
    in forbidden things and then break faith with [one another], to
    such mutual redress as their own standard of honor may award.”);
    Bernard, 1 La. Ann. at 70 (“[C]ontracts prohibited by law, or
    contrary to good morals or public order, can have no effect.”);
    Gravier’s Curator, 17 La. at 127 (“[A]n obligation without a cause
    or with a false or unlawful one can have no effect.”).
    14
    Boatner, 12 La. Ann. at 251; see also Gravier’s Curator,
    17 La. at 131 (“[C]ourts of justice are not reduced to the
    humiliation of adjusting among dishonest men the results of their
    unholy speculations or of protecting one party against another
    while engaged in a common purpose, at war with the best interest of
    society and subversive of public order.”).
    15
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2033, cmt. (c) (West 1987); see also
    Gravier’s Curator, 17 La. at 127 (“[W]here both parties are charged
    with the same turpitude[,] the law gives no action [and,] . . .
    [i]n such cases[,] the maxim is ‘Impari causa turpitudinus potior
    est causa possidentis.’”).
    16
    Bernard, 1 La. Ann. at 71.
    12
    himself   a   wrongdoer     should   not    be    able     to   benefit   from    the
    concurrent wrongdoing of another.”17 Although a rudimentary version
    of the Anglo-American concept of unclean hands (which became a
    common law doctrine as a result of the merger of law and equity)
    appears to have seeped interstitially into Louisiana’s Civil Law
    system,18 at least nominally so, the extent to which it has been
    embraced as a substantive maxim of Civil Law is uncertain at best.19
    And, to the extent that the courts of Louisiana have conflated the
    Anglo-American unclean hands canon with the Civil Law notion that
    neither   party   to   an   unlawful       or    immoral    agreement     may    seek
    17
    Vidrine v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 
    268 So. 2d 233
    ,
    239 (La. 1972).
    18
    See Thomason v. Thomason, 
    355 So. 2d 908
    , 910 (La. 1978)
    (noting that the doctrine of recrimination —— barring recovery by
    either party to a domestic dispute when both parties are equally at
    fault —— is “based on the equitable idea that he who comes into
    court with unclean hands cannot obtain relief”); Rhodes v. Miller,
    
    179 So. 2d 430
    , 431 (La. 1938) (“[C]ourts will not relieve a
    litigant who appeals for relief with unclean hands.”); Coker v.
    Supreme Indus. Life Ins. Co., Inc., 
    43 So. 2d 556
    , 559 (La. Ct.
    App. 1950) (“It is axiomatic in our jurisprudence that equity will
    not aid one who comes into court with unclean hands. The line of
    decisions confirming this maxim is unbroken and too well known to
    need citation here.”).
    19
    See Poole v. Guste, 
    262 So. 2d 339
    , 345 (La. 1972) (noting
    that “limitations to the remedy of equity recognized in common-law
    jurisdictions . . . are not necessarily applicable to Louisiana,
    with its different civilian procedural background” and rejecting
    defendants’ argument that plaintiffs’ unclean hands barred
    injunctive relief); Bramblett v. Wilson, 
    413 So. 2d 600
    , 602 (La.
    Ct. App. 1982) (“It is questionable that the so-called ‘clean
    hands’ doctrine, an equitable common law theory, has any
    application in our civilian jurisdiction.”).
    13
    enforcement in a court of law,20 the doctrine occupies a unique
    niche in Louisiana as a defense to actions ex contractu: It bars
    legal recovery.21
    However this hybrid doctrine is characterized, though, it is
    now firmly ensconced in Article 2033 of Louisiana’s Civil Code,
    which provides, in pertinent part:
    [A] performance rendered under a contract that
    is absolutely null because its object or its
    cause is illicit or immoral may not be
    recovered by a party who knew or should have
    known of the defect that makes the contract
    null.    The performance may be recovered,
    however, when that party invokes the nullity
    to withdraw from the contract before its
    purpose is achieved and also in exceptional
    situations when, in the discretion of the
    court, that recovery would further the
    interest of justice.22
    20
    See Spearman v. Willson, 
    99 So. 2d 31
    , 33 (La. 1958)
    (likening the principle of law under which neither party to an
    agreement designed to hide property from creditors to prevent its
    seizure can seek judicial relief to “leaving the parties in the
    same position [the court] found them on the theory that both
    plaintiff and defendants have unclean hands”) (emphasis added);
    Bernard, 1 La. Ann. at 71 (“[W]e leave the property where the
    dishonest acts of the party have placed it.    Whoever claims it
    hereafter, must come before us with clean hands.”) (emphasis
    added).
    21
    See Poole, 
    262 So. 2d at 345
     (noting that the defense of
    unclean hands is a “[limitation] to the remedy of equity recognized
    in common-law jurisdictions, based on the historical use in them of
    injunctions by the chancery court where the damage-remedy in the
    regular courts was inadequate”); Terrebonne Parish Police Jury v.
    Kelly, 
    428 So. 2d 1092
    , 1093 (La. Ct. App. 1983) (“The doctrine of
    ‘clean hands’ is an equity principle that requires that ‘he who
    comes into a court of equity must come with clean hands.’”)
    (quoting City of New Orleans v. Levy, 
    98 So. 2d 210
    , 218
    (La. 1957)).
    22
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2033 (West 1987).
    14
    Inasmuch as simulated transfers designed to defraud creditors are
    absolute nullities,23 Article 2033 codifies the line of cases relied
    on by Parker for his “unclean hands” defense.24
    Davis attacks the applicability of Article 2033 here on the
    ground     that   simulated     transfers    are   not,     in   fact,   absolute
    nullities.        He   argues   that   Parker   may   not    avail   himself   of
    Louisiana’s extant version of the unclean hands doctrine because
    agreements in fraud of creditors produce only relative nullities.25
    Davis maintains that, as a matter of statutory construction,
    transactions that prejudice creditors by transferring assets to
    third persons cannot be “absolutely null” because the Civil Code
    provides     defrauded    creditors     with    specific     remedies     ——   the
    revocatory action for cases of actual transfers to third parties;
    23
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2030 (West 1987) (“A contract is
    absolutely null when it violates a rule of public order, as when
    the object of a contract is illicit or immoral.”); Succession of
    Webre, 
    172 So. 2d 285
    , 288 (La. 1965) (“Since the property has
    never left the patrimony of the ostensible seller, a simulated sale
    is an absolute nullity.”); Spearman, 99 So. 2d at 33 (noting that
    agreements designed to hide property from creditors to prevent its
    seizure are contra bonos mores and unenforceable); Gast v. Gast, 
    19 So. 2d 138
    , 140 (La. 1944) (“[A fraudulent simulation] is not in
    reality a contract; it is a mere pretense, a sham, a disguise, the
    purpose of which is to defeat the rights of creditors with respect
    to the debtor’s property; it is an absolute nullity.”).
    24
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2033, cmt. (a) (West 1987).
    25
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2031 (West 1987) (“A contract is
    relatively null when it violates a rule intended for the
    protection of private parties, as when a party lacked capacity or
    did not give free consent at the time the contract was made.”).
    15
    the action to declare a simulation for cases of feigned transfers.26
    The Code’s specific provision of a remedy for feigned transfers
    would be mere surplusage, argues Davis, if fraudulent transactions
    produced     absolute   nullities:    Any    creditor      would   already   have
    standing —— by virtue of such transaction’s absolute nullity27 ——
    to have the court declare the transaction null.
    Davis’s argument would appear unmeritorious in light of the
    pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Gast v. Gast.28
    We need not, however, decide whether the interplay among some
    modern     provisions   of   the   Code    affects   the    enforceability     of
    26
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. arts. 2025, 2036 (West 1987).
    27
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2033 (West 1987) (“Absolute nullity
    may be invoked by any person. . . .”).
    28
    The Gast court noted that feigned transfers in fraud of
    creditors are absolute nullities, notwithstanding the co-existence
    of the declaration of simulation remedy:
    [T]here is a vast and clear distinction
    between a fraudulent simulation and a real
    contract made in fraud of creditors.        The
    former is not in reality a contract; it is a
    mere pretense, a sham, a disguise, the purpose
    of which is to defeat the rights of creditors
    with respect to the debtor’s property; it is
    an absolute nullity.        The creditor may
    disregard the fraudulent simulation entirely
    and   seize   the   affected   property   under
    execution, or he may resort to the action en
    declaration de simulation.        But a real
    contract, although fraudulently entered into,
    cannot be so disregarded by the creditors. No
    matter how fraudulent, it must be set aside by
    a   judgment;   and   for  this   purpose   the
    revocatory action is provided.
    Gast, 
    19 So. 2d at 140
     (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
    16
    simulated transfers as between the parties to such agreements, for
    we conclude that Parker’s unclean hands defense fails on other
    Article 2033 grounds.
    By its terms, Article 2033 does not bar recovery unless —— in
    addition to the absolute nullity prerequisite —— (1) the party
    seeking enforcement entered into the agreement with knowledge of
    its improper nature, and (2) the parties achieved their improper
    objective.29     In its verdict, the jury found that Davis did not
    enter into the asset transfer agreement for an unlawful, immoral or
    illicit purpose.        We cannot say that, in its denial of Parker’s
    alternative motion for j.m.l. or new trial, the district court’s
    implicit determination that the jury’s conclusion is not against
    the   great    weight    of   the   evidence   constitutes   an   abuse   of
    discretion, which would require reversal and the grant of a new
    trial.     Neither can we say that the evidence points so strongly in
    favor of a scienter finding against Davis that reasonable jurors
    29
    See supra note 22 and accompanying text.         Contrary to
    Parker’s assertions otherwise, Article 2033 does not appear to have
    altered the Civil Law’s pre-codification treatment of unlawful
    contracts;   scienter    and   successful  attainment   existed  as
    prerequisites to barring recovery before Article 2033 was enacted.
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2033, cmts. (a), (d) & (e) (West 1987);
    Gravier’s Curator, 17 La. at 127 (“By the Roman law right to
    recover back what had been paid on an illicit contract depended
    upon the question which of the parties was dishonest or whether
    both were chargeable with the same turpitude. If the party who had
    received were alone dishonest the sum paid could be recovered back
    even though the purpose for which it was given had been
    accomplished.”) (emphasis added); Id. at 127-128 (“These principles
    apply in cases where the corrupt or reprobated contract has had its
    effect . . . .”) (emphasis added).
    17
    would have to conclude that he knew of the illicit purpose of the
    transfer, which would require reversal and the grant of a j.m.l.
    As evidence that Davis’s motive for executing the asset
    transfer agreement was to hide his Campbell Wells interest from his
    creditors, Parker relies on Davis’s intentional failure to (1) list
    his Campbell Wells interests on financial statements submitted to
    creditors, including the IRS, the FDIC, and Guaranty Bank; (2)
    report his beneficial interest in Campbell Wells on his 1986-1994
    tax returns;30 and (3) disclose his Campbell Wells interests during
    debt reduction negotiations with a number of his creditors.31
    The district court, however, found sufficient support for the
    jury’s verdict in the evidence that Parker initiated the asset
    transfer scheme, inducing Davis to divest his interests in Campbell
    Wells based on the Parker-generated specter of a potential judgment
    creditor’s attempting to seize that interest. According to Davis’s
    testimony,   Parker,   in   his   capacity   as   attorney   for   Davis,
    accompanied him to a meeting called by the general partner of
    Preferred Properties, a real estate development company in which
    30
    Davis reported substantially diminished or negative taxable
    income on these returns, as well as creditor forgiveness of
    substantial debt obligations that he was unable to meet. Parker
    contends that had Davis disclosed his Campbell Wells interest in
    the insolvency calculations he used to avoid the payment of taxes
    on phantom income from the forgiveness of debt, his tax liability
    would have been different.
    31
    This nondisclosure, urges Parker, gave Davis greater leverage
    with which to negotiate favorable settlements and enabled him to
    persuade the FDIC to abandon the prosecution of a $3 million
    collection suit.
    18
    Davis had invested.     Preferred Properties had borrowed heavily to
    finance one of its projects, but the project failed to produce
    enough cash flow to service its debt obligations.          At the meeting,
    investors were asked to make supplemental contributions sufficient
    to service the loan that was secured by a mortgage on the company’s
    property.     Several partners announced that they were filing for
    bankruptcy and thus would not be able to make any contributions
    toward the partnership’s obligations.            When Davis —— whose own
    financial situation was deteriorating —— indicated that he too
    would be unable to contribute, one of the partners became upset and
    openly hostile towards the other members of the investment group
    and Davis in particular.
    Davis testified that after the meeting Parker advised him that
    the   disgruntled   partner   could   try   to    seize   Davis’s   assets,
    depriving him of resources with which to pay his other creditors.
    At the time, Davis’s interests in Campbell Wells was the only one
    of his business holdings that had a significant value; the company
    was netting approximately $100,000 per month.         Davis averred that
    Parker offered to take title to Davis’s stock and apply Davis’s
    share of the company’s revenues towards their substantial mutual
    debt.32    In this way, rather than losing his sole income-generating
    asset to one anxious creditor, Davis would retain the possibility
    32
    Parker and Davis, as business partners, owed —— in addition
    to their Campbell Wells indebtedness —— some 2.6 million dollars in
    joint indebtednesses on various investments.
    19
    of recovering from his financial straits by satisfying most, if not
    all, of his creditors.        As such, stated Davis, his purpose in
    entering the asset transfer agreement was to pay his creditors, not
    to defraud them.      The jury obviously believed him; whether we or
    the trial judge would have is of no moment.
    Parker admitted at trial, via impeachment, that the asset
    transfer agreement was discussed in these terms, but denied that
    the    agreement    was   ultimately    confected      for    the   purpose   of
    preserving    the   stock’s   income-generating     potential       for   Davis.
    Instead, testified Parker, the two settled on an outright exchange
    —— Davis transferred his interests to Parker in full ownership, and
    Parker assumed Davis’s proportionate share of the debts incurred in
    the Campbell Wells acquisition. Parker would not deny, however,
    that   he   originally    approached    Davis   with    the    asset   transfer
    proposal, not vice versa; and conceded that both parties understood
    that any proceeds from the transferred assets were to be applied to
    their joint debt.
    Davis posits that Parker’s version of the nature of their
    agreement is implausible because Davis was never concerned that he
    might be called on to meet his own obligations as guarantor on the
    loans with which the Campbell Wells acquisition had been financed:
    The company was making more money than it needed to service its
    notes, so Davis had no incentive to trade his interests for the
    assumption of his share of the company’s debt by Parker.                      It
    appeared quite likely to all concerned that those debts would be
    20
    timely and fully satisfied out of the company’s earnings, and
    unlikely that, even if there were a default, a foreclosure sale
    would not produce sufficient proceeds to cover the debts and thus
    make unnecessary the payment of deficiencies by the shareholders
    under their personal guaranties.           Indeed, Davis saw the venture’s
    profitability as a means of satisfying the debts he had incurred on
    other ventures as well.33
    In addition to the evidence of Parker’s inducement, the
    district court, in refusing to render a j.m.l., relied on the fact
    that Parker had represented Davis in a legal capacity throughout
    the attempted work-out of Davis’s debts.              His ex-wife, Jeanne
    Davis, apparently handled all the paper work associated with her
    husband’s finances.        She testified that in connection with the
    work-out of Davis’s bank debt,34 Guaranty Bank had given her a blank
    form    to   use   in   furnishing   information    on   Davis’s   financial
    33
    Parker contested Davis’s characterization of his Campbell
    Wells stock.   At trial, Parker referred to the investment as a
    “touch and go” concern, the success of which was far from certain.
    The jury was presented with ample evidence to the contrary: The
    financial statements for Campbell Wells indicated that, prior to
    its acquisition, the company had approximately $500,000 in accounts
    receivable and cash, and was netting approximately $90,000 per
    month in earnings; Parker responded affirmatively when asked
    whether the company was well on its way to success when the
    Campbell Wells deal was closed; six weeks after the purchase, the
    financial statements reflected shareholder equity in the amount of
    $1,101,554; the pro forma submitted to Guaranty Bank in conjunction
    with the loan application projected $2,390,000 in profit for the
    first full year of operation following the company’s purchase; and
    its five-year projection totaled $21,511,000 in profit.
    34
    Davis had obtained loans from the bank to finance several
    ventures that ultimately failed.
    21
    condition.        She further testified that when she asked Parker
    whether the Campbell Wells interest should be included on the
    bank’s financial statement form under the heading “assets held in
    trust,” Parker instructed her to discard the bank’s form and gave
    her an alternative form that did not contain a similar entry space.
    She stated that Parker advised her that Davis’s Campbell Wells
    interests need not be included on the substituted form as the stock
    was not in Davis’s name and there “was nothing in writing.”
    Ms.   Davis    also     testified       that    she    considered        Parker’s
    instruction to be legal advice, and that she felt safe in assuming
    that Parker would give her sound advice inasmuch as he was also an
    attorney    for    Guaranty      Bank   ——    the    institution        to   which    the
    financial statement was to be submitted.               Mr. Davis testified that
    he ratified the decision to omit his interests from the statement
    for the same reasons.
    Based on the testimony adduced at trial, the jury could
    reasonably have concluded that Davis relied on Parker’s counsel ——
    legal, business, and personal —— for the legitimacy of their mutual
    actions.    In the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence
    supports the conclusion that Parker’s advice was born out of his
    own self-interest —— keeping outsiders from becoming involved in
    the   Campbell     Wells    venture,    if    nothing       else   ——    and   that    he
    manipulated       Davis     to    further      that     self-interest.35               In
    35
    According to Davis’s testimony, Parker took advantage of
    their mutual trust in dictating the nature of and circumstances
    22
    surrounding their transaction:
    Q:   What confidence did you have in Mr. Parker as your attorney
    when you transferred your Campbell Wells interest to him on
    February 3rd, 1986?
    * * *
    A:   I had complete confidence in Mr. Parker.
    Q:   And how was that confidence built over the years?
    A:   It was built through trust, through business relationships,
    through conversations, through social activities, through things we
    did together and through practices that —— things that we
    discussed, and I think that Mr. Parker, as far as I was concerned
    at the time, was an extremely competent attorney.
    * * *
    Q:   Okay. What discussions did you have with Mr. Parker about
    having a writing in the side so that you could show later on that
    he was holding the shares for you to be returned?
    A:   Are you talking about a counter letter?
    Q:   A counter letter.
    A:   Well, I asked Mr. Parker about that, and he says, no, there’s
    no way that we can do a counter letter.
    * * *
    Q:   The [Act of Cash Sale & Assumption] says that Mr. Parker
    assumed your obligations at Guaranty Bank, is that right?
    A:   Yes, sir.
    Q:   And you said earlier that there was no discussion about a
    release of yourself from the Guaranty Bank obligation pertaining to
    Campbell Wells. What discussion was ever had that he was going to
    assume your obligations at the bank?
    A:   No discussion of that at all.
    Q:   And would you state whether you ever read from the document?
    23
    A:   No, sir.   I trusted Mr. Parker.      I went in, I signed the
    document and I left.
    Q:   And would you state whether Mr. Parker ever sent you a copy of
    that document until this lawsuit was filed?
    A:     No, sir, he did not.
    Q:     Okay.   Would you state why you didn’t read the document?
    A:     Well, because Mr. Parker, I thought, was looking out for my
    best   interest. I had a lot of confidence in him, and we had made
    this   agreement on what we were going to do, and I just didn’t feel
    like   it was necessary that I had to read it.
    Q:   Reference is made in that document to a thousand dollar cash
    payment. Would you state whether any amount of money was paid to
    you?
    A:     Did he pay me anything?
    Q:     Yes.
    A:     No, absolutely not.
    Q:   What conversations, if any, did Mr. Parker ever make as to
    what the contents of that document were?
    A:     Nothing.   We never discussed it.
    Q:   Okay. What comments did Mr. Parker make to you regarding any
    adverse interest or conflict of interest that he would have
    preparing this as your attorney and asking you to sign it?
    A:     He never discussed that with me at all.
    Q:   What conversation did Mr. Parker have with you about the
    disadvantage or any consequences that might result if you signed
    this document without a counter letter?
    A:     We never discussed that situation at all.
    Q:   What statements, if any, did he make to you, and I’m speaking
    of Mr. Parker, that it might not be in your best interest to sign
    this document?
    A:     He never informed me anything like that.
    24
    addition, the jury was presented with evidence that, during the
    time that his Campbell Wells stock was held in Parker’s name, Davis
    paid off some of his debts with assets that were exempt from
    seizure.36   From the fact that Davis took measures beyond those
    mandated by the law to resolve his indebtednesses, the jury could
    Q:   What advice did Mr. Parker give you that you should hire
    another attorney to review this document before you signed it?
    A:   Mr. Parker never advised me that I should even think about
    getting another attorney or get another attorney, and if he had
    been advising me to get another attorney, then I would not probably
    have signed this document at all.
    In addition, circumstantial evidence of Parker’s true motive
    is found in the actions he took following the execution of the Act
    of Cash Sale & Assumption. Under the written agreement, Parker
    only assumed Davis’s proportionate share of the Campbell Wells
    debt; i.e., Davis remained personally liable to Guaranty Bank and
    the Campbells but, by virtue of the assumption, Parker became
    liable to Davis for any creditor judgment against him on the notes.
    Shortly after the assumption, however, Parker —— who was also
    Guaranty Bank’s attorney —— acted within the bank to have Davis
    released from his liability on the Campbell Wells loan.       Davis
    testified that Parker never discussed the possibility of obtaining
    a release with him, and that he only mentioned it in passing after
    the fact.
    This move is telling in light of the fact that Guaranty Bank
    included a     cross-collateralization   provision   in  its   loan
    instruments.    Under that provision, the bank was entitled to
    execute on the collateral put up for any loan that the debtor had
    with the bank should the debtor default on a given loan. The jury
    reasonably could have inferred from Parker’s actions that his true
    concern was with preventing creditors from seizing Davis’s Campbell
    Wells interest and interfering with the venture inasmuch as
    (a) Davis had multiple loans with Guaranty Bank that were in danger
    of going into default, and (b) Parker took no comparable action
    with respect to Davis’s liability on the Campbells’ promissory
    note.
    36
    Ms. Davis testified that she and her husband paid creditors
    with the equity (approximately $200,000) in their retirement fund
    and life insurance policies. Davis also sold his home in Texas to
    satisfy a tax lien that the IRS had placed on the house.
    25
    reasonably have inferred that he did not enter the asset transfer
    agreement with the intent to defraud creditors.          It follows that
    the district court did not err reversibly in refusing to grant
    Parker a j.m.l. on the basis of his unclean hands defense.
    C.   ENFORCEMENT   OF   ORAL AGREEMENT
    In its answer to the first interrogatory, the jury found that
    the Act of Cash Sale & Assumption in and of itself was not a valid
    contract expressing the true intent of the parties; rather, it was
    a simulation. The jury further determined that Davis was operating
    under an error about the nature and terms of that contract and
    would not have entered it had he been aware of his error; and that
    Parker induced Davis to enter that contract through fraud.           The
    jury concluded nonetheless that a contract (written transfer of
    title combined with oral obligation to retransfer) did exist
    between the parties —— a contract whereby Parker agreed to hold and
    return Davis’s Campbell Wells stock —— which Parker breached when
    he refused to return the stock to Davis.
    In addition to his claim of unenforceability grounded in the
    unclean hands doctrine, Parker contends that even if such an oral
    retransfer agreement existed, it is not enforceable under Louisiana
    law because it is vague.37         Also, Parker insinuates that admitting
    37
    Parker relies on Conkling v. Turner, 
    18 F.3d 1285
    , 1301-03
    (5th Cir. 1994)(alleged oral contract for stock redemption failed
    for lack of a definite price), in making this contention.       He
    insists that the alleged agreement is vague in that Davis provided
    no testimony about the details of this purported agreement and did
    not specify whether Parker was entitled to any compensation for
    26
    oral    testimony        to   prove   the    retransfer   provision      violated
    Louisiana’s specific statute of frauds for sales of securities as
    it stood at all pertinent times.38
    Regarding vagueness, Parker urges that an agreement under
    which       he   would   simply   “hold”    the   stock   “in   trust”    for   an
    unspecified time and return it to Davis on request is too vague to
    be enforceable. Regarding enforcement of an oral agreement to sell
    allegedly “holding” the stock. Parker further comments that there
    was no agreement as to the payment of taxes, distribution of
    dividends, liability for debts, or the consequences of bankruptcy,
    should it occur.
    38
    See LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 10:8-319 (West 1993)(stating that a
    contract for the sale of securities is not enforceable unless there
    is some signed writing), repealed by Acts 1995, No. 884, § 1, eff.
    Jan. 1, 1996; see also Levinson v. Charbonnet, 
    977 F.2d 930
     (5th
    Cir. 1992)(refusing to enforce oral agreement to sell stock);
    Morris v. People’s Bank & Trust Co. of Natchitoches, 
    580 So. 2d 1037
     (La. Ct. App. 1991)(applying statute of frauds to private
    agreement to buy bank stock). As a preliminary matter, we observe
    that this court has applied section 8-319 to oral agreements to
    sell stock. Charbonnet, 
    977 F.2d at 932-33
    . In that case, we
    commented that there appeared to be some “confusion in the
    Louisiana case law concerning whether R.S. 10:8-319 modifies or
    restricts the Louisiana Civil Code provisions that provide for the
    enforceability of oral agreements to buy and sell corporeal and
    incorporeal moveables,” as three Louisiana courts of appeal
    decisions, relying on the Civil Code, had validated oral agreements
    for the sale of securities.      As those cases failed to mention
    section 8-319, we determined that they did not intend to undermine
    its validity. We further noted that another Louisiana court of
    appeal affirmed the validity of section 8-319 and reconciled any
    apparent conflicts between the Civil Code and that provision. We
    concluded that the Louisiana Supreme Court would uphold the
    validity of section 8-319, were it presented with the Charbonnet
    case.   
    Id.
       We observe in passing that section 8-319 has been
    repealed and a sale or purchase of securities no longer requires a
    writing in the traditional sense. Section 8-113 now provides: “A
    contract or modification of a contract for the sale or purchase of
    a security is enforceable whether or not there is a writing signed
    . . . .” LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 10:8-113 (West Supp. 1998).
    27
    stock, Parker argues —— in anticipation of Davis’s contention that
    the contract was not a “sale” and therefore does not fall within
    the coverage of the statute of frauds —— that the contract cannot
    stand as anything other than a sale.          In any event, continues
    Parker, if it was not a sale, it had to be either a gratuitous
    donation or a trust. In either case, contends Parker, the district
    court erred when it entered judgment on the jury’s verdict, as the
    agreement was neither in authentic form as required for a valid
    gratuitous donation,39 nor in a form required by the applicable
    provisions of the Louisiana Trust Code for the creation of a
    trust.40
    As Parker anticipated, Davis countered that the statute of
    frauds for securities is inapplicable, as it proscribes oral
    agreements to sell securities, not oral agreements to hold and
    return them.       Davis maintains that the jury rejected Parker’s
    contention that the transaction was intended to be a sale, finding
    instead that a contract existed “whereby Parker agreed to hold and
    return Campbell Wells stock to Davis.”      Davis insists that, as the
    39
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. arts. 1523, 1536 (West 1987). See also
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1539 (stating that manual gifts are not
    subject to any formalities). Although the authentic act is not
    required for gratuitous transfers of corporeal movables, shares of
    stock have been held to be incorporeal movables and thus
    insusceptible of being donated manually. See, e.g., Primeaux v.
    Libersat, 
    322 So. 2d 147
     (La. 1988) (citing Succession of McGuire,
    
    151 La. 514
    , 
    92 So. 40
     (La. 1922), and Succession of Sinnot v.
    Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 
    105 La. 205
    , 
    30 So. 233
     (La. 1901)).
    40
    See LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 9:1752 (West 1991).
    28
    transaction was not a sale, it was an “innominate contract” in
    which, for the consideration of Parker’s attempting to discharge a
    joint indebtedness, Davis agreed to place the stock in Parker’s
    name for his use in discharging debt, after which Parker would
    return the stock to Davis.      Moreover, continues Davis, as no price
    was contemplated in either of the two steps of the transaction, it
    could not be a sale.
    Davis continues by arguing that the agreement is neither a
    gratuitous donation nor a trust. He concedes that in his testimony
    he used the phrase “in trust” to describe the nature of Parker’s
    precarious possession, but explains that he used those words in the
    non-technical sense and that it was never his contention that
    either   a   formal   or   constructive   trust   relationship   had   been
    created.     Davis acknowledges that the stock was placed in Parker’s
    name intentionally, but insists that the stock thus transferred
    remained subject to Parker’s obligation to return it to Davis at a
    future date.      Neither was the agreement a gratuitous donation,
    continues Davis, as it transferred the stock to Parker for the
    purpose of facilitating his management of Davis’s affairs with his
    creditors and to prevent Davis’s stock from finding its way into
    the hands of third parties who might interfere with the original
    foursome’s unfettered control of Campbell Wells.         And, of course,
    Davis disputes Parker’s contention that the oral agreement was too
    vague to be enforceable.
    29
    Finally, Davis advances that even if the statute of frauds
    were applicable to prevent enforcement of the oral retransfer
    aspect of the agreement, any error with regard to the jury’s
    finding of breach of contract is harmless and does not require that
    the judgment in Davis’s favor be reversed.    This is so, he posits,
    because his case was submitted to the jury on multiple alternative
    theories of recovery —— breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
    duty, detrimental reliance, and fraud41 —— each of which was
    addressed in special interrogatories.        With the exception of
    detrimental reliance, the jury found for Davis on each alternative
    theory submitted.   (The jury failed to reach detrimental reliance
    because its affirmative finding on the existence of a contract
    mooted the detrimental reliance issue.)
    We conclude that the jury’s determination that the written
    asset transfer agreement was a simulation —— a contract which, by
    mutual agreement, does not express the true intent of the parties
    inter se —— is supported by the evidence apparently credited by the
    41
    In instructing the jury on the law applicable to the case,
    the court stated that “the plaintiff, William Davis, has asserted
    four separate causes of action against the defendant, Ernest
    Parker; breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, detrimental
    reliance and fraud.” In addressing the breach of contract claim,
    the court explained that “[c]onsent may be invalidated by error,
    fraud or duress.”    The court continued, “Davis asserts error
    existed as to the principal cause of the contract in this case . .
    . .” Later, when addressing the fraud claim, the court noted that
    “[c]onsent to a contract can also be destroyed by fraud or
    misrepresentation.”
    30
    jury.42   This is the legal and factual essence of Davis’s position,
    regardless of whether he has advanced it crisply or artfully, when
    he continually insists that the agreement he entered into with
    Parker was not a sale but rather an arrangement whereby Parker was
    to hold and later return the stock to him.         Davis maintains, quite
    simply, that he remained the true owner of the stock despite the
    transfer of legal title pursuant to the written agreement confected
    between the parties to the contrary.
    “[A] transaction will not be set aside as a simulation if any
    consideration supports the transaction because the reality of the
    transference is thus established.”43      In his appellate brief, Davis
    asserts that    “no   sale   was   contemplated,   but   a   transfer,   the
    consideration for which was not a price but the management of the
    42
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2025 (West 1987); Fritscher v.
    Justice, 
    472 So. 2d 105
    , 107 (La. Ct. App. 1985) (“A simulation is
    a feigned or pretended sale clothed with the formalities of a valid
    sale.”); see also Thompson v. Woods, 
    525 So. 2d 174
    , 178 (La. Ct.
    App. 1988) (“In order to determine whether or not a sale is
    simulated the court must determine whether the parties acted in
    good faith, whether there was an actual intention to transfer
    property, and whether any consideration was given for the
    transfer.”); Peacock v. Peacock, 
    674 So. 2d 1030
    , 1033-34 (La. Ct.
    App. 1996) (“Two legal presumptions, one codal and one
    jurisprudential, apply in situations where a party seeks to prove
    a simulation . . . . The jurisprudential presumption of simulation
    applies where the evidence establishes the existence of facts and
    circumstances which create a highly reasonable doubt as to the
    reality of the putative sale . . . .         When either codal or
    jurisprudential presumption exist, the burden of proof shifts to
    the other party to the sale who may rebut the presumption by
    establishing a good faith transaction, resulting in a true
    alienation of ownership for consideration.”).
    43
    Trident Oil & Gas v. John O. Clay Expl. Inc., 
    622 So. 2d 1191
    , 1193 (La. Ct. App. 1993).
    31
    asset for the benefit of the joint creditors of the parties.”        What
    Davis may have thought of subjectively as consideration does not
    matter; the issue is whether consideration was present as a matter
    of law.   We conclude that it was not.
    Neither   the   release   of   Davis    from   the   Campbell   Wells
    obligation at the Guaranty Bank nor the stipulation in the asset
    transfer agreement providing for a $1000 payment to Davis alters
    our view.   Davis testified that he and Parker had no discussions
    before or at the time of the transfer regarding any wish by Davis
    to be released from the Guaranty Bank note.44        Parker’s testimony
    did not refute this; indeed, as he testified, the document itself
    does not call for him to obtain Davis’s release from either the
    Guaranty Bank debt or the Campbell debt, much less expressly bind
    Parker to have Davis released.           Parker further testified that
    (1) he did not think that Davis would have a right to force him to
    have Davis released from those debts; (2) he never told Davis that
    the document was tantamount to a release on the two debts; and
    (3) he had never stated to anyone else that Davis wanted to be
    released from the debt at Guaranty Bank.        The fact is that Davis
    remained liable on the obligation to the Campbells until the
    Sanifill merger and never complained.45
    44
    Davis also testified that he and Parker had no discussions
    regarding Parker’s “assuming” Davis’s obligations at Guaranty Bank,
    as provided for in the agreement.
    45
    Parker does take the position, however, that he had “assumed”
    responsibility for the loan, and as such, Davis had rights against
    32
    As for the $1000, Davis testified that he was not paid any
    money.      Parker himself testified that the $1000 was “not what the
    deal was about;” rather, “it was put in there . . . so there’s not
    a property title question on the face of the document.”46    On cross
    examination, one of Davis’s trial attorneys inquired “let’s get
    back to the case at hand that we’re in court on . . . . [A]nd that
    is, the thousand dollars was not paid for the --.”            Parker
    responded, “It may not have been.         I don’t -- probably not.”
    Clearly, between the parties neither release from debt nor payment
    of the cash consideration was ever contemplated.      This is wholly
    consistent with simulation.
    In opposing enforcement of the agreement to retransfer the
    stock, Parker implicitly challenges the propriety of allowing Davis
    to introduce parol evidence and thereby vary the terms of the
    written Act of Cash Sale & Assumption.          Louisiana Civil Code
    Article 1848 provides:
    Testimonial or other evidence may not be admitted to
    negate or vary the contents of an authentic act or an act
    under private signature. Nevertheless, in the interest
    of justice, that evidence may be admitted to prove such
    circumstances as a vice of consent, or a simulation, or
    to prove that the written act was modified by a
    him.
    46
    A curious explanation for a Louisiana lawyer —— presumably
    referring to anachronistic jurisprudence on “serious consideration”
    —— given that the immovable property in question was at all
    relevant times owned by either the corporation or the partnership
    and was never the object of a direct sale from Davis to Parker; and
    movable property is not subject to the laws of registry.
    33
    subsequent and valid oral agreement.47
    The nature of the simulation —— absolute or relative —— may
    determine whether the parties to the simulated act, or only third
    parties, may introduce such evidence.48          A simulation is absolute
    when the parties intend for their act to produce no effects
    whatsoever between them;49 it is relative when the parties intend
    for their act to produce some effects between them, even though
    such effects are not identical to those recited in their act.50              A
    relative simulation produces the effects that the parties intend if
    all requirements for those effects have been met.51             In the case of
    an absolute simulation, however, “the apparent transferor may not
    succeed      in   attacking   [it]   in    the   absence   of    a   [written]
    counterletter.”52
    47
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1848 (West 1987).
    48
    
    Id.
     cmt. (c).
    49
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2026 (West 1987).
    50
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2027 (West 1987).
    51
    
    Id.
    52
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2026 cmt. b (citing Thomas B. Lemann,
    Some Aspects of Simulation in France and Louisiana, 29 TUL. L. REV.
    22, 30-31 (1954)); see also SAÚL LITVINOFF, 5 LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW TREATISE,
    THE LAW OF OBLIGATIONS § 12.97, at 399-400 (West 1992)(“[R]egarding the
    use of testimonial proof as evidence of a simulation, the
    restrictions that remain concern only the parties to the
    simulation, as third persons may avail themselves of that kind of
    evidence to prove a simulation adverse to their interest.”) (citing
    Hampton v. Rubicon Chems., Inc., 
    436 So. 2d 1254
     (La. Ct. App.
    1983), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 
    458 So. 2d 1260
     (La.
    1984)) and In re Hacket, 
    4 Rob. 290
     (La. 1843)). The court in
    Hampton stated that “the parol evidence rule applies only to
    34
    Clearly, if the written agreement between Davis and Parker was
    a simulation it was relative.      They intended for their act to
    produce some effects between them, and it did: The Campbell Wells
    stock theretofore registered to Davis was re-issued to Parker.53
    As such, it cannot be said that they intended that their written
    act have “no effect.”    But the jury credited Davis’s contention
    that the transfer of the stock was only the first of two steps in
    this transaction, not the sole step.   The second step was to be the
    return of the stock to Davis, reversing the effect of the first
    step, yet still not producing a “no effect” agreement.           The
    district court, then, did not abuse its discretion in allowing
    Davis to introduce parol evidence to prove that the asset transfer
    agreement was indeed a simulation.54
    But even if this were not the case, the parol evidence at
    actions between the parties to the contract and their privies, not
    to actions between parties and third persons.” Id. at 1260.
    53
    Davis states in his appellate brief that he never contended
    that Parker’s acquisition of the stock was not real or that the
    transaction was a mere sham; rather, Davis advances that Parker did
    acquire the stock, but subject to the obligation to reconvey it to
    Davis in the future. Moreover, Davis testified that “we discussed
    that a little bit . . . that he [Parker] would have the controlling
    interest in the company and access to some resources . . . if this
    is a worst comes to worst situation, he could pay him and I’s notes
    with.” Davis also testified that Parker said, “Bill, you can have
    it [Campbell Wells stock] back any time you want. I’ll give it
    back to you.”
    54
    See LITVINOFF, supra, § 12.97, at 398 (“When the act contained
    in a written instrument is a relative simulation, that is, when the
    parties intend that their act shall produce between them effects
    different from those recited in the instrument, testimonial proof
    is admissible to prove their true intent.”).
    35
    issue would be admissible, as Davis also sought rescission of the
    agreement based on two vices of consent —— error and fraud.55   Civil
    Code Article 1848 makes clear that testimonial evidence is properly
    admissible on questions of vice of consent.56
    In the instant case, simulation and consent to permanent
    ownership by Parker are opposite sides of the same coin.         The
    effect that the simulated transfer was to produce is not critical.
    Had it been intended to produce a trust, technical problems would
    have arisen, as Louisiana does not recognize a constructive trust,57
    and the written agreement clearly did not establish an express
    trust.    In like manner, the relationship intended by the parties
    may have been correctly characterized as mandate, with Parker
    acting as Davis’s agent or mandatary, as the district court appears
    55
    See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1948 (West 1987)(“Consent may be
    vitiated by error, fraud, or duress.”).
    56
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1848 (West 1987); see also Sonnier v.
    Boudreaux, 
    673 So. 2d 713
    , 718 (La. Ct. App. 1996)(“Although parol
    evidence is generally not admissible to vary or contradict the
    clear and unambiguous terms of an authentic act or written
    instrument, in the interest of justice, it may be admitted to prove
    a vice of consent.”); Smith v. Remodeling Serv., Inc., 
    648 So. 2d 995
     (La. Ct. App. 1994)(“[A] party to an authentic act who alleges
    that the act was executed through fraud, error or mistake may be
    permitted   to    introduce   parol   evidence   to  support   such
    allegations.”)(citing Mitchell v. Clark, 
    448 So. 2d 681
     (La. 1984)
    and Billingsley v. Bach Energy Co., 
    588 So. 2d 786
     (La. Ct. App.
    1991)).
    57
    Matter of Oxford Management, Inc., 
    4 F.3d 1329
    , 1336 (5th
    Cir. 1993); Marple v. Kurzweg, 
    902 F.2d 397
    , 399 (5th Cir. 1990).
    36
    to have construed it.58   Alternatively, Davis’s delivery of his
    stock to Parker might properly be characterized as a deposit.59   Or
    together, the written-and-oral agreement might have created an
    innominate relationship that provided for Davis to “park” his stock
    with Parker for an indefinite —— but not permanent —— period and to
    reacquire it later.
    Our exhaustive (and exhausting) review of the extensive trial
    record does not yield a single, precise Civil Law label for the
    relationship created between Davis and Parker.    Plainly, however,
    the jury credited Davis’s evidence, which supports the existence of
    58
    A mandate is “an act by which one person gives power to
    another to transact for him and in his name . . . .” LA. CIV. CODE
    ANN. art. 2985 (West 1994), revised by Acts 1997, No. 261, § 1, eff.
    Jan. 1, 1998. La. Civ. Code Article 2989 now provides that “[a]
    mandate is a contract by which a person, the principal, confers
    authority on another person, the mandatary, to transact one or more
    affairs for the principal.” LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2989 (West Supp.
    1998). Significantly, a mandate (1) may be established by an oral
    or written agreement between the parties; (2) is gratuitous in
    nature, unless there is a contrary agreement; (3) may be revoked by
    the principal whenever he thinks it proper; and (4) binds the
    mandatary “to restore to his principal whatever he has received by
    virtue of his procuration.” LA. CIV. CODE ANN. arts. 2991, 2992,
    3005, 3028 (West 1994) (revised 1997). In denying Parker’s motion
    to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment on the breach of
    contract claim, the district court addressed the possibility of a
    mandate. Record on Appeal, vol. 31, pgs. 12-29.
    59
    “A deposit, in general, is an act by which a person receives
    the property of another, binding himself to preserve it and return
    it in kind.” LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2926 (West 1994). Deposit is
    essentially a gratuitous contract, involving the delivery of
    movable property, which is created by the parties’ mutual consent,
    whether actual or implied. See LA. CIV. CODE ANN. arts. 2928, 2929,
    2930, 2932, 2933 (West 1994).      Finally, “[t]he deposit must be
    restored to the depositor as soon as he demands it . . . .” LA.
    CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2955 (West 1994).
    37
    a relative simulation consisting of an oral stipulation sufficient
    to vary the terms of the written agreement and prohibit full
    ownership of the stock from ever passing from Davis to Parker.
    Irrespective of the name by which this “rose” is called, though,
    the jury was convinced that it included an obligation by Parker to
    return the stock to Davis.       Moreover, as the jury also found,
    Parker’s failure to return the stock constituted a breach of that
    obligation.    We conclude that the jury’s findings regarding the
    existence of an oral covenant to retransfer the stock was neither
    unreasonable nor against the great weight of the evidence.
    The   written   agreement   could   correctly   be   viewed   as   a
    simulation, with the true relationship involving a return of the
    stock, as the jury viewed it.       Davis thus properly brings this
    action for breach of contract, seeking the return of his stock.
    This is truly no different in effect than seeking rescission of the
    written contract, either because of the simulation or because error
    or fraud vitiated Davis’s consent.         Stated differently, it is
    immaterial whether the relationship confected was a mandate, a
    deposit, or an innominate contract, for the result is the same:
    Each of these roads lead to Rome.      Accordingly, the arrangement is
    not unenforceable so the district court did not commit reversible
    error in admitting the parol evidence or in denying Parker’s motion
    for j.m.l. or new trial on this issue.
    D.   PRESCRIPTION
    38
    This case came before us in Parker I as an appeal from a grant
    of summary judgment in favor of Parker: The district court had
    dismissed Davis’s suit as time-barred under Louisiana’s one-year
    prescriptive period for legal malpractice actions.60   In reversing
    and remanding, we held that (1) Davis’s claims for rescission,
    breach of contract, and detrimental reliance do not come within the
    ambit of section 5605(A)’s provisions because they are not actions
    predicated on traditional legal malpractice, i.e., they do not
    concern the quality of legal representation; and (2) although, in
    a sense Davis’s nullity claim does concern the quality of legal
    representation, it is not covered by the statute as the language of
    section 5605(A) limits the prescriptive period’s application to
    “action[s] for damages” and the objective of a nullity action is
    ordinarily restoration in kind.61
    Parker entreats us to revisit the prescription issue.       He
    argues that, as a result of the manner in which Davis tried his
    case against Parker on remand, we are not bound by the law of the
    case doctrine.62      Parker notes that Davis escaped dismissal in
    60
    LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 9:5605 (West 1990). This is the version
    of section 5605 in effect at the time Davis filed his suit against
    Parker.      The statute has subsequently been amended. See
    LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 9:5605 (West 1998).
    61
    Parker I, 
    58 F.3d at 188-90
    .
    62
    Reid v. Rolling Fork Pub. Util. Dist., 
    979 F.2d 1084
    , 1086
    (5th Cir. 1992) (“The decision of a legal issue by an appellate
    court establishes the ‘law of the case’ and must be followed in all
    subsequent proceedings in the same case at both the trial and
    appellate levels unless the evidence at a subsequent trial was
    39
    Parker I by drawing a “fine distinction” between Parker’s status as
    a businessman and his status as a lawyer.                  In other words, Davis
    represented that his claims for breach of contract, rescission, and
    detrimental reliance turned on Parker’s actions in his capacity as
    Davis’s      business    associate,     not       as       his   lawyer.       This
    representation, urges Parker, led us to conclude in Parker I that
    Davis’s claims had not prescribed because they are not traditional
    legal malpractice claims.         But, contends Parker, having fashioned
    his case one way to avoid prescription, Davis proceeded on remand
    to paint an entirely different picture for the jury —— in essence,
    putting Parker’s status and actions as an attorney on trial.                       In
    support of      his   argument,   Parker    cites      a    number   of    instances
    throughout the trial in which Davis purportedly placed improper
    emphasis on Parker’s role as an attorney.
    Although he is correct that Parker I hinged on the fact that
    Davis’s claims had nothing to do with the quality of legal services
    rendered,63    Parker    misconstrues      that    decision       insofar     as   he
    substantially different, the controlling authority has since made
    a contrary decision of law applicable to such issues, or the
    decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest
    injustice.”) (citing Schexnider v. McDermott Int'l Inc., 
    868 F.2d 717
    , 718-19 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    493 U.S. 851
    , 
    110 S. Ct. 150
    ,
    
    107 L. Ed. 2d 108
     (1989)).
    63
    As we stated in Parker I:
    Although Parker’s legal advice may have
    contributed to Davis’ decision to transfer the
    stock to Parker, the stock could have been
    transferred to a non-lawyer and the same
    actions could have been brought against that
    40
    interprets it as a general gag order with respect to the subject of
    Parker’s legal representation or his status as a lawyer in general
    and Davis’s long-time lawyer in particular.      The relevance of
    Parker’s status as an attorney has never been questioned.   The fact
    that Parker was Davis’s attorney, as well as his business associate
    and trusted friend, was offered to explain how the asset transfer
    agreement came into being, and was essential to Davis’s nullity
    action: It established the fiduciary duty on which the claim was
    predicated.64   The gravamen of Parker’s contention lies in the
    ostensibly improper manner in which Davis repeatedly presented
    party.   That an attorney happens to be the
    transferee does not grant him the benefit of a
    one-year prescriptive period when a non-lawyer
    entering into the same agreement would be
    subject to a ten-year prescriptive period.
    Davis’ fundamental complaint against Parker on
    [his breach of contract, rescission, and
    detrimental reliance claims] does not concern
    the quality of Parker’s legal services;
    rather, Davis complains that Parker reneged on
    his promise to retransfer the Campbell Wells
    stock to Davis.
    Parker I, 
    58 F.3d at 189
    .
    64
    Davis argued at trial that the asset transfer agreement was
    entered into in violation of former Disciplinary Rule 5—104(A) of
    the Louisiana Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
    “A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client
    if they have differing interests therein and if the client expects
    the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment therein for the
    protection of the client, unless the client has consented after
    full disclosure.” The Code’s provision applied, notwithstanding
    its replacement with the Rules of Professional Conduct, because the
    conduct at issue occurred before the Rules’ adoption.           See
    Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Alker, 
    530 So. 2d 1138
    , 1139 n.2
    (La. 1988).
    41
    evidence of Parker’s profession, keeping that fact foremost in the
    jurors’ minds at all times.
    If Parker wished to complain that he was unfairly prejudiced
    by the emphasis placed on his status as an attorney, however, it
    was incumbent on him to object and request a limiting instruction,65
    which he never did. When viewed in context of the jury trial as a
    whole, though, Parker’s lament rings hollow.      Even though lawyers
    as litigants may labor under the disability imposed by the lawyer-
    bashing vogue of the times, the fact remains that subjective
    qualities   of   the   parties   litigant    ——     age,    education,
    sophistication, occupation, cultural background, and the like ——
    are frequently relevant to the issues of the case.         And that is
    certainly true of the instant litigation and the kinds of issues
    that it presents. We are bound by the law of the case, and we
    remain unconvinced that Davis’s claims sound in malpractice.66
    65
    Fruge v. Penrod Drilling Co., 
    918 F.2d 1163
    , 1168 (5th. Cir.
    1990) (noting that “[w]here evidence is admissible for one purpose
    but not another, the burden is on the objecting party to request a
    proper limiting instruction” and that the issue is waived if no
    objection is made) (citing FED. R. EVID. 105).
    66
    Parker also urges us to reconsider section 5605(A)’s
    application to Davis’s nullity claim, arguing that the claim was a
    facade, given that restoration in kind was never a viable
    possibility. This argument was disposed of in Parker I, 
    58 F.3d at 191
     (“Moreover, even if the court ultimately determines that
    damages are the only feasible remedy in this case, we are not
    persuaded that the Louisiana courts would adopt one prescriptive
    period in a nullity action for which restoration in kind is
    feasible and a different prescriptive period for a nullity action
    for which the court determines that restoration in kind is
    impossible.”).
    42
    E.   REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
    Parker urged his motion for j.m.l. or new trial, on the
    additional ground that the district court reversibly erred in
    permitting Davis to call two of Parker’s former clients —— Kathleen
    Howard and Kenneth Guilbeau —— as rebuttal witnesses.   Howard and
    Guilbeau testified to specific actions taken by Parker in the
    course of representing them professionally.67   Parker insists that
    67
    Guilbeau testified that Parker represented him in the
    negotiation of the terms under which replacement tenants were to
    assume Guilbeau’s then-current tenants’ obligations under a
    commercial lease. In the drafting of the new lease, Parker omitted
    certain material terms but nonetheless obtained the parties’
    signatures by assuring everyone that he would complete the
    agreement later.
    Howard testified that Parker represented her in divorce
    proceedings against her then-husband. According to Howard, she
    retained Parker in April 1983, after Randy Prather and “Red”
    Dumesnil recommended him. Prather was a loan officer with Guaranty
    Bank and Dumesnil was its president.         Prather and Dumesnil
    requested a meeting with Howard after discovering that she had
    filed for legal separation. Her husband was delinquent on a note
    that he had given the bank in conjunction with a large loan.
    Howard testified that Prather and Dumesnil expressed concern over
    how her separation would affect the loan, giving her the impression
    that she was responsible for half of her husband’s note.       They
    arranged for her to meet with Parker even though she already had an
    attorney.   They did not disclose the fact that Parker also did
    legal work for Guaranty Bank.
    On Parker’s advice, Howard enlisted her daughter to obtain a
    power of attorney from her father so that Howard could pay off her
    husband’s debts. Even though the husband’s note contained a cross-
    collateralization provision, the bank could not levy on the other
    funds that he had on deposit because they were not in his name ——
    they were in a corporate account. After obtaining her father’s
    power of attorney, Howard’s daughter, under her mother’s direction,
    withdrew the funds from the corporate account —— over $1,000,000 ——
    and put them in a CD in her father’s name. The bank then offset
    those   funds   against   the   note,  pursuant    to  its   cross-
    collateralization agreement. Yet Parker never explained to Howard
    that she was under no legal obligation to pay off the note, and
    that by transferring the funds to a personal CD, she would be
    43
    their     testimony   was   offered    for   the   improper   purpose   of
    demonstrating his bad character via his alleged prior misconduct.
    As such, says Parker, their testimony constitutes “other acts”
    evidence that is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence
    (F.R.E.) 404(b).68
    Davis counters that the testimony of Howard and Guilbeau did
    not trigger F.R.E. 404(b), as it was offered for impeachment
    purposes pursuant to F.R.E. 608(b) and not as substantive evidence:
    Guilbeau contradicted Parker’s testimony that he had never asked a
    client to sign an incomplete instrument on the assurance that he
    would fill in the details later; and Howard contradicted Parker’s
    and Prather’s testimony concerning the nature and extent of their
    relationships with one another and with Guaranty Bank.69
    diminishing the value of the corporation in which she had a
    community property interest.
    When Parker returned her file, she discovered —— attached to
    a letter from her husband complaining to Dumesnil about what had
    happened —— a handwritten note from Prather to Parker which read:
    “Ernie [Parker], what can I say? Another satisfied customer. Red
    was ticked off because Bobby [Howard’s husband] didn’t spell
    ‘Dumesnil’ correctly after all these years. s/Randy Prather.”
    68
    See FED. R. EVID. 404(b)("Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or
    acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order
    to show that he acted in conformity therewith.”).
    69
    Prather was a loan officer in Guaranty Bank’s commercial
    lending department; he reviewed the loan application for the
    Campbell Wells acquisition and is now president of Premier Bank ——
    Guaranty Bank’s successor. Parker portrayed himself —— in his own
    testimony and through Prather’s testimony —— as having a detached
    and strictly professional relationship with Guaranty Bank: He
    denied that he was acting in the capacity of the Bank’s attorney
    when the Campbell Wells loan application was made, and Prather
    testified that, although Parker did some work for Guaranty Bank,
    44
    Parker nevertheless emphasizes that the rebuttal testimony
    cannot find shelter under F.R.E. 608(b), as that rule limits
    impeachment on collateral matters to cross-examination of the
    witness.70 He contends that the Howard and Guilbeau testimony about
    their previous legal representations by Parker concerned collateral
    matters; as a result, he urges, it was inadmissible extrinsic
    evidence.
    Parker’s argument misses the mark with respect to Howard’s
    testimony.        That   testimony    suggests   that   Parker   worked
    intimately —— even collusively —— with Prather and Guaranty Bank
    long before the Campbell Wells deal.         As such, it contradicts
    Parker’s portrayal of the relationships among himself, Prather, and
    Guaranty Bank,71 which relationships are not collateral matters in
    Jimmy Bean (Parker’s partner) was the bank’s true attorney; Parker
    testified that he was uncertain whether or not, prior to the
    Campbell Wells deal (September 1985), he had any direct business
    dealings with Prather; and both Parker and Prather denied that they
    were friends, claiming that their relationship was strictly
    professional in nature.     According to Davis, Parker sought to
    mischaracterize Guaranty Bank’s inner workings and Parker’s role
    therein in an effort to portray the bank as the hapless victim of
    Davis’s unclean hands.
    70
    “Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the
    purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ credibility, other
    than conviction of crime as provided in rule 609, may not be proved
    by extrinsic evidence.”    FED. R. EVID. 608(b); United States v.
    Herzberg, 
    558 F.2d 1219
    , 1223 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    434 U.S. 930
    , 
    98 S. Ct. 417
    , 
    54 L. Ed. 2d 290
     (1977).
    71
    See supra note 69.
    45
    this case.72   Moreover, her testimony casts doubt on Prather’s
    objectivity by demonstrating a bias in favor of Parker; and witness
    bias is never immaterial.73
    Parker’s F.R.E. 608(b) contention does have arguable merit,
    however, with respect to Guilbeau’s testimony.    Parker’s alleged
    practice of having his clients execute incomplete instruments on
    the assurance that he would complete them later is not material to
    Davis’s claims.74   As such, Guilbeau’s testimony contradicting
    Parker would be admissible only if Parker had placed the alleged
    practice in issue on direct examination.75   Parker’s testimony on
    72
    See Head v. Halliburton Oilwell Cementing Co., 
    370 F.2d 545
    ,
    546 (5th Cir. 1967) (“The test for determining what is a collateral
    matter . . . [has been phrased]: ‘Could the fact as to which error
    is predicated have been shown in evidence for any purpose
    independently of the contradiction?’”) (citations omitted).
    73
    See United Stated v. Abel, 
    469 U.S. 45
    , 56, 
    105 S. Ct. 465
    ,
    471, 
    83 L. Ed. 2d 450
     (1984); United States v. Martinez, 
    962 F.2d 1161
    , 1165 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that F.R.E. 608(b) does not
    prohibit the use of extraneous evidence “if it tends to show bias
    in favor or against a party”) Parker further argues that the
    probative value of Howard’s testimony in demonstrating bias is
    substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect on the jurors.
    We cannot say, however, that the district court abused its
    discretion in admitting the testimony.
    74
    Davis argues for materiality on the ground that “one of the
    issues central to Parker’s defense was his contention that the [Act
    of Cash Sale & Assumption] signed by Davis should have been taken
    at face value, when the truth is that Parker sometimes told his
    clients, such as Guilbeau, that documents as signed do not always
    mean what they say.” We find Davis’s argument unconvincing.
    75
    See Jones v. Southern Pac. R.R., 
    962 F.2d 447
    , 450 (5th cir.
    1992)(noting that “[l]itigants are . . . entitled to introduce
    extrinsic evidence to contradict a witness’ testimony on matters
    that are material to the merits of the case” and that “if the
    opposing party places a matter in issue on direct examination,
    46
    the matter was elicited by Davis’s counsel on cross-examination
    during Davis’s case in chief, not by Parker’s counsel.                   Thus,
    Guilbeau’s testimony —— extrinsic evidence —— could not have been
    properly used to impeach Parker on the question whether it was his
    practice to obtain signatures on incomplete instruments —— at best
    a    collateral   issue.     Even   so,    any    error   resulting   from   the
    admission of Guilbeau’s testimony was harmless.               The plethora of
    other probative evidence adduced at trial militates against a
    finding of prejudicial effect.76          We discern no reversible error in
    the district court’s admission of this rebuttal testimony.
    F.     NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES: EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
    The jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Davis
    “suffered emotional distress, anguish or inconvenience which Parker
    intended to occur as a result of his refusal to return Davis’s
    Campbell Wells stock.”       For this the jury awarded Davis $175,000,
    and the district court included this award in its             judgment on the
    verdict.    In his motion for j.m.l. or new trial, Parker challenged
    this jury finding as well, contending that there was no evidence to
    support nonpecuniary damages for emotional distress.             The district
    fairness mandates that the other party can offer contradictory
    evidence even if the matter is collateral” but that “a party cannot
    delve into collateral matters on its own initiative and then claim
    a right to impeach that testimony with contradictory evidence”).
    76
    See F.D.I.C. v. Mijalis, 
    15 F.3d 1314
    , 1318-19 (5th Cir.
    1994) (“We will not reverse a district court’s evidentiary rulings
    unless they are erroneous and substantial prejudice results. The
    burden of proving substantial prejudice lies with the party
    asserting error.”).
    47
    court        disagreed,      stating   broadly    ——   and,    we     must   note,
    conclusionally —— that “there is an adequate amount, and in some
    cases overwhelming amount, of evidence to support all of the jury’s
    findings . . . .”
    Louisiana Civil Code Article 1998 permits recovery of damages
    for non-pecuniary loss associated with a breach of contract under
    only    two,      narrowly    restrictive     circumstances:    (1)    “When   the
    contract . . . is intended to gratify a non-pecuniary interest and
    . . . the obligor knew, or should have known, that his failure to
    perform would cause that kind of loss”77 and (2) “[r]egardless of
    the nature of the contract[,] . . . when the obligor intended,
    through his failure, to aggrieve the feelings of the obligee.”78
    Parker offers two reasons why the district court erred in
    allowing the jury’s emotional distress award to stand.                       First,
    regarding Civil Code Article 1998(i), he observes that the nature
    of the contract at issue was not to gratify a nonpecuniary interest
    and that there was no showing that he knew or should have known
    that Davis was susceptible to such an injury for breach of the
    agreement —— if indeed he was.          Parker points to two cases which he
    reads as holding that stock transfer agreements lack any intent to
    gratify a non-pecuniary interest.79 Second, Parker urges that there
    77
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1998 (West 1987).
    78
    
    Id.
    79
    Parker first invokes our decision in Stephenson v. Paine
    Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 
    839 F.2d 1095
     (5th Cir.), cert.
    48
    is inadequate evidence in the record that Davis in fact experienced
    any emotional distress.     Parker observes that the only modicum of
    evidence supporting mental distress is the bare, conclusional
    testimony of Davis that “[t]his is very traumatic for me, I promise
    you that.”    Moreover, there was no confirmation by Davis’s former
    wife that he suffered such distress, continues Parker, and no
    record   of   Davis’s    having   consulted   with     a    mental   health
    professional about emotional problems.
    Davis    counters   that,    for   nonpecuniary       damages   to   be
    recoverable, the obligee’s nonpecuniary interest need only be a
    denied, 
    488 U.S. 926
    , 
    109 S. Ct. 310
    , 
    102 L. Ed. 2d 328
     (1988). In
    Stephenson, an investor brought suit against a brokerage house and
    its individual broker for trading securities on his behalf without
    authorization. The district court “dismissed [investor’s] claim
    for emotional distress on the grounds that Louisiana law requires
    a nonpecuniary interest as the cause for emotional distress, and no
    such interest was present in [that] case.”       Id. at 1101.    On
    appeal, we deferred to the district court’s determination of
    Louisiana law, noting that (1) “a district court is in a better
    position than we are to ascertain the law of the state in which it
    sits” (but Stephenson was decided before the Supreme Court, in
    Salve Regina College v. Russell, 
    499 U.S. 225
    , 231, 
    111 S. Ct. 1217
    , 1221, 
    113 L. Ed. 2d 190
     (1991) abolished such deference) and
    (2) the investor had not demonstrated that any trades were
    “unauthorized” as that term is legally identified. 
    Id.
     The second
    case relied on by Parker, Abu-Kiskh v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc., 
    764 F. Supp. 76
     (W.D. La. 1990), does not address stock transfer
    agreements.   In that case, the parties entered the contract to
    (1) compensate plaintiff for the oil company’s previous use of her
    property as a disposal site, and (2) lease the property for such
    use in the future.    Id. at 77. When the company ceased paying
    minimum monthly rent, the plaintiff filed suit for breach of
    contract seeking, inter alia, damages for mental suffering. The
    district court rejected this claim, concluding that “[t]he contract
    in question has as its primary object the recovery of past
    compensation and future income —— purely pecuniary objects.”). Id.
    at 80.
    49
    significant object or cause of the contract, which is a question of
    fact.80      The jury could reasonably have concluded, continues Davis,
    that the contract had as a significant object or cause some
    nonpecuniary interest —— the trusting bond of friendship and
    brotherhood shared by Parker and Davis, for example. Davis insists
    that Parker was his “attorney and best friend,” someone whom he
    trusted to guide him through the tough times.             Furthermore, Davis
    urges, the jury could have found that Parker acted with an overt
    intention to cause Davis emotional distress, the second ground for
    awarding such damages under Article 1988.
    Davis insists that the record demonstrates beyond question
    that    he    indeed   suffered   emotional   distress,    pointing   to   his
    testimony that the experience has been very traumatic. He contends
    that his anguish included not only that which he experienced from
    learning of the betrayal of trust and from his humiliation at being
    “taken,” but also the trauma of having to sell his home to satisfy
    creditors and the reduction in his assets.81         Relying on Quealy v.
    80
    Stonecipher v. Mitchell, 
    655 So. 2d 1381
    , 1385 (La. Ct. App.
    1995)(emphasis added)(“[W]e understand the current law to be that
    the obligee’s nonpecuniary interest need only be a ‘significant’
    object or cause of the contract in order for nonpecuniary damages
    to be recoverable.”)(citing Young v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 
    595 So. 2d 1123
     (La. 1992)).
    81
    Davis notes that he was “reduced to assets consisting of 4
    lots in Picayune, Mississippi, two payments left from a note
    receivable, household furnishings, and about $8,000 in the bank.”
    50
    Paine Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc.,82 Davis argues that such
    evidence is more than sufficient to support the jury’s award for
    mental anguish.
    We agree with Parker on this point.              The nature of the
    contract at issue was not to gratify any nonpecuniary interest of
    Davis’s.     Our review of the entire record reveals nothing of this
    nature.      Moreover, our record review turns up little if any
    evidence (beyond Davis’s one bare statement of the affair’s being
    traumatic) of emotional distress.          We conclude that no reasonable
    jury could find that Davis suffered an actionable type of emotional
    distress from Parker’s breach of contract.            Thus, the award of
    damages for emotional distress cannot stand.
    G.   ATTORNEYS’ FEES
    The district court correctly instructed the jury that a party
    against whom rescission is granted on grounds of fraud is entitled
    to damages and attorneys’ fees.             The court explained that in
    determining the amount of attorneys’ fees, the jury must consider
    those     factors   provided   in   Louisiana’s   Rules   of   Professional
    Conduct:
    82
    
    475 So. 2d 756
     (La. 1985)(upholding damages for mental
    anguish, humiliation and inconvenience in action against broker and
    issuer based on unauthorized sale of stock (conversion), when
    (1) dividends from converted stock constituted plaintiff’s main
    source of income (except for a small disability pension);
    (2) plaintiff’s living conditions were drastically impaired by the
    loss of those dividends; (3) plaintiff was physically unable to
    work; and (4) as of the date of trial, plaintiff had been without
    the dividend income for six years).
    51
    [One,] [t]he time and labor required, the novelty and
    difficulty of the questions involved[,] and the skill
    requisite to perform the legal service properly; [two,]
    [t]he likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the
    acceptance of the particular employment will preclude
    other employment by the lawyer; [three,] [t]he fee
    customarily charged in the locality for similar services;
    [four,] [t]he amount involved and the result[s] obtained;
    [five,] [t]he time limitations imposed by the client or
    by the circumstances; [six,] [t]he nature and length of
    the professional relationship with the client; [seven,]
    [t]he experience, reputation and ability of the lawyer or
    lawyers performing the service[s]; and [eight,] [w]hether
    the fee is fixed or contingent.83
    The jury concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that
    Parker induced Davis to enter the written agreement through fraud.
    Having    thus    answered     affirmatively      regarding     fraud   in   the
    inducement,      the    jury    dutifully      turned      to   a   subsequent
    interrogatory, i.e., “[D]o you find that the plaintiff’s attorneys
    are allowed to recover their attorney fees as provided in the
    contingency      fee   agreement?”   The   jury    again   responded    in   the
    affirmative.      Had the answer been “no” —— rejecting the contingent
    fee arrangement —— the jury would have proceeded to consider next
    what amount of attorneys’ fees the plaintiff’s attorneys were
    entitled to recover; but that interrogatory was mooted by the
    jury’s approbation of the contingent fee arrangement. The district
    court entered judgment against Parker in the sum of $3,200,278.60,
    83
    Articles of Incorporation of the Louisiana State Bar
    Association, LA. REV. STAT. ANN., Title 37, ch. 4 app., art. 16 (West
    1988) (Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5(a)) (articulating
    the factors considered in determining the reasonableness of an
    attorney’s fee). Rule 1.5 is the embodiment of former Disciplinary
    Rule 2-106 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
    52
    representing attorneys’ fees under the contingent fee contract,
    plus legal interest from the date of the jury verdict.
    When, in August 1996, it denied Parker’s alternative motion
    for j.m.l. or new trial, the court rejected Parker’s claim that
    there was insufficient evidence to support the one-third contingent
    fee award, noting that “the jury was presented with a copy of the
    attorney fee agreement and was instructed by [the] court regarding
    the   appropriate     factors   to   be    considered     in    assessing    the
    reasonableness of an award for attorney fees.”            The court reasoned
    that, “[a]lthough the plaintiff did not present any evidence
    regarding    actual   time   expended     upon   the   trial,   the   jury   was
    certainly in a position to determine whether the contingency fee
    agreement that was presented was reasonable in light of the amount
    of documents presented, complexity of these issues, and any other
    factors which the jury could observe through trial.”             “Had the jury
    found that the contingency fee agreement was not reasonable,”
    continued the court, “the plaintiff was willing to accept ‘zero’
    attorney fees due to the fact that there was no other evidence of
    attorney time submitted.”
    In a diversity case, state law governs the award of attorneys’
    fees.84     Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 1958, “[t]he party
    against whom rescission is granted because of fraud is liable for
    84
    Texas Commerce Bank v. Capital Bancshares, Inc., 
    907 F.2d 1571
    , 1575 (5th Cir. 1990).
    53
    damages and attorney fees.”85             “Fraud is a misrepresentation or a
    suppression of the truth made with the intention either to obtain
    an   unjust     advantage      for    one    party    or    to     cause       a    loss   or
    inconvenience to the other.           Fraud may also result from silence or
    inaction.”86         “To find fraud from silence or suppression of the
    truth,       there    must   exist    a     duty     to    speak    or     to       disclose
    information.”87        This duty can arise by statute or by a special
    relationship         between    the       parties,        such     as      a       fiduciary
    relationship.88        Given the jury’s verdict on the merits, an award
    of attorneys’ fees to Davis is appropriate.
    An attorney’s fee must be reasonable; however, a court is not
    bound by the terms of a contingent fee agreement in determining the
    reasonableness of a fee award.89 “[C]ontingency fee contracts, like
    all other attorney fee contracts, are subject to review and control
    85
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1958 (West 1987).
    86
    LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1953 (West 1987).
    87
    Greene v. Gulf Coast Bank, 
    593 So. 2d 630
    , 632 (La. 1992).
    88
    America’s Favorite Chicken Co. v. Cajun Enters., Inc., 
    130 F.3d 180
    , 186 (5th Cir. 1997)(citing Greene, 
    593 So. 2d at 633
    ).
    89
    See, e.g., Adams v. Franchise Fin. Corp. of Am., 
    689 So. 2d 572
    , 577 (La. Ct. App.)(concluding that the award of the contingent
    fee was not excessive nor an abuse of discretion), writ denied, 
    692 So. 2d 456
     (La. 1997); see also Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v.
    Chaubert, 
    973 F.2d 441
    , 449 (5th Cir. 1992)(“That a fee is
    contingent may be considered, but the court is not bound by this
    consideration alone.”), cert. denied, 507 U.S 987, 
    113 S. Ct. 1585
    ,
    
    123 L. Ed. 2d 152
     (1993).
    54
    by the courts —— most notably for reasonableness.”90           The quantum
    of an award of attorneys’ fees is a question of fact and thus
    appropriately a jury issue.91
    Parker argues that the record fails to show that Louisiana law
    was followed in the award of attorneys’ fees.             He advances that
    attorneys’ fees may not be recovered except when authorized by
    statute or contract,92 and insists that no statutes authorize
    recovery     in   this   case.    Specifically,   Parker    contends   that
    attorneys’ fees are not available under Article 1997 of the Civil
    Code, which governs damages awardable for a bad faith breach of
    contract. Furthermore, he maintains that Article 1958, which makes
    attorneys’ fees available when rescission is based on fraud, is not
    applicable in this case, as Davis’s claim of fraud was legally
    insufficient and should not have been considered by the jury; he
    asserts      that    “fraud      cannot    be   imputed     from   alleged
    misrepresentation(s) alone but, rather, must be based solely on a
    person’s intent not to perform.”93          Thus, concludes Parker, the
    award of attorneys’ fees on the basis of fraud is inappropriate.
    90
    O’Rourke v. Cairns, 
    683 So. 2d 697
    , 701 (La. 1996).
    91
    Francis v. Travelers Ins. Co., 
    581 So. 2d 1036
    , 1044-45 (La.
    Ct. App.), writ denied, 
    588 So. 2d 1114
     (La.) and 
    588 So. 2d 1121
    (La. 1991).
    92
    State, Dep’t of Transp. and Dev. v. Williamson, 
    597 So. 2d 439
    , 441 (La. 1992).
    93
    Automatic Coin Enters., Inc. v. Vend-Tronics, Inc., 
    433 So. 2d 766
    , 767-68 (La. Ct. App.), writ denied, 
    440 So. 2d 756
     (La.
    1983).
    55
    Parker argues in the alternative that, even if attorneys’ fees
    were properly awarded, the amount of the instant award cannot be
    justified.     He observes that (1) although the jury instructions
    recited the factors that determine the reasonableness of a fee, the
    interrogatory on the issue covered only one of these —— whether the
    fee   is   fixed   or   contingent   ——    when   it   asks   whether   Davis’s
    attorneys were allowed to recover “attorney fees as provided in the
    contingency fee agreement”; and (2) there was no evidence on which
    the jury could determine the reasonableness of the fee awarded.
    Parker insists that Davis should have introduced contemporary time
    records or testimony of time spent.
    Davis responds first that, in light of the court’s charge to
    the jury that fraud can be committed by a failure to disclose that
    of which there is a duty to speak,94 the finding of fraud is legally
    sufficient.    Davis urges that Parker, as his attorney, had a duty
    to disclose all relevant and material information, including his
    true motivation for inducing Davis to enter the contract, his
    94
    The court stated, in part, “[c]onsent to a contract can also
    be destroyed by fraud or misrepresentation.           Fraud is a
    misrepresentation or suppression of the truth made with the
    intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to
    cause a loss or inconvenience to the other. Fraud may also result
    from silence or inaction.” The court also explained that “[w]hen
    an attorney enters into a business transaction with a client, the
    attorney has a fiduciary obligation to either fully disclose the
    relevant information to the client . . . or advise the client to
    seek outside counsel before completing the transaction. Failure to
    do so may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by an attorney if
    an attorney/client relationship exists, regardless of whether the
    attorney entered the particular transaction as a businessman.”
    56
    conflict of interest, and his conviction that the stock was worth
    more than he was leading Davis to believe.             Davis notes that Parker
    admitted that he failed to disclose the relevant details of the
    transaction.95 This, combined with the fact that Parker secured the
    release of the Guaranty Bank debt within a few days following the
    stock transfer but did not even attempt to procure a release of the
    debt to the Campbells, maintains Davis, was sufficient to support
    the jury’s conclusion that Parker “was planning something from the
    very date of the initial transfer.”
    Responding next to Parker’s argument that the amount of the
    award cannot be justified, Davis insists that the district court’s
    rejection of this position in Parker’s post-trial motions was
    entirely proper.     Davis correctly notes that proof of the value of
    an attorney’s services is not necessary if the services are evident
    from    the   record,96   and   insists    that   ——    contrary   to   Parker’s
    assertions —— the record does indeed support the jury’s award of
    95
    Parker testified that he did not tell Davis that (1) he
    should consult another attorney before entering the transaction,
    and (2) he (Parker) was acting as a businessman —— not as Davis’s
    attorney —— in the transaction.    Parker complains that Davis’s
    argument is inconsistent inasmuch as when Davis needs Parker to be
    an attorney (to establish a duty to disclose information so that
    fraud can be argued and attorney’s fees awarded), he is
    “conveniently” an attorney; however, when Davis needs Parker to be
    a businessman (to avoid prescription or preemption), he is just a
    businessman.
    96
    Hebert v. State Farm Ins. Co., 
    588 So. 2d 1150
    , 1153 (La. Ct.
    App. 1991)(“[P]roof of the value of an attorney’s services is not
    necessary if the services are evident from the record or were
    rendered under the supervision of the court.”).
    57
    attorneys’ fees.          Davis bases his argument on the opinion of a
    Louisiana court of appeal in Adams v. Franchise Finance Corp. of
    America.97 In Adams, the trial court awarded a one-third contingent
    fee.        The court of appeal acknowledged that “[n]o independent
    evidence was presented by Adams on this issue, other than what the
    trial court could observe from the record and an affidavit by Adams
    showing that he had signed a contingency fee contract with his
    counsel . . . ,”98         but affirmed the award of the contingent fee
    nonetheless.        The   Adams    court   took   into    account,    inter      alia,
    (1) “the considerable actions taken by Adams’ counsel as well as
    other members of his firm that have been involved with this
    litigation since its inception in 1991”; (2) “[the attorney’s] high
    degree of skill and ability as evidenced by the pleading, briefs,
    and oral arguments”; (3) “[the] considerable amount of money in
    dispute and [that] plaintiff made a full recovery in the trial
    court       which   was   upheld   by   this    court    herein”;    and   (4)   that
    “[c]ounsel for the plaintiff provided substantial legal services
    which consisted of numerous filings, considerable discovery, and
    the filing and opposing of the motion for summary judgment together
    with supporting memoranda and exhibits.”99
    Davis argues that the information before the jury in this
    97
    
    689 So. 2d 572
     (La. Ct. App.), writ denied, 
    692 So. 2d 456
    (1997).
    98
    
    Id. at 577
    .
    99
    
    Id.
    58
    case, like that in Adams, is sufficient to support the contingent
    fee   award.          The   jury     was    presented     with    the    contingent    fee
    agreement and asked to determine whether Davis’s counsel were
    entitled to recover that amount. In further parallel with the
    situation in Adams, Davis’s counsel did not present independent
    evidence     on       the   issue:         They    presented     no   records    of   hours
    expended, hourly rates, priority of service, complexity of the
    litigation, special expertise, or the like.                           Nonetheless, Davis
    insists, the jury was aware of (1) his difficulty in securing an
    attorney; (2) how hard and bitterly Parker opposed Davis’s claim;
    (3) how long it took to bring the case to trial; (4) the extensive
    effort expended, in light of the appeal from the summary judgment
    in    Parker      I    on   prescription          and   the   remand     for    additional
    proceedings; (5) the massive expenditures on voluminous exhibits
    and the quantity of testimony; and (6) the time-consuming and
    lengthy nature of the trial.
    Finally, Davis contends that Parker was content to risk all-
    or-nothing when the interrogatories were submitted to the jury. As
    such, he should not be heard to complain now that he finds himself
    on the losing end of that bet.100
    In the context of attorneys’ fees, Parker’s argument regarding
    the absence of fraud is nothing more than sophistry.                            Given the
    100
    As to his alleged contentment with the interrogatory, Parker
    notes that he objected to the interrogatory, and the objection was
    overruled.
    59
    substantive instructions to the jury, its finding of fraud in the
    inducement, and our statements in Parker I, Parker cannot avoid
    Davis’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees by denying the presence of
    fraud.101    There was sufficient evidence for the jury to have
    concluded that Parker committed fraud, both passively, in failing
    to disclose the relevant information and not advising Davis to seek
    independent legal counsel, and actively, in misleading Davis by
    orally committing to retransfer the stock while having no intention
    of doing so.    As for the reasonableness of the fee awarded, when we
    consider that, as Parker states, (1) we must follow Louisiana law
    in this diversity case, and (2) under Louisiana law this was
    appropriately    a   question   for   the   jury,   we   conclude   that   no
    reversible error was committed by the district court in rendering
    judgment on the basis of the jury’s award of attorneys’ fees.
    Inasmuch as we have reversed the award of $175,000 for emotional
    distress, the award of attorneys’ fees must be reduced by an amount
    equal to one-third of the disallowed recovery, i.e., by $58,333.
    H.   COSTS
    The same cannot be said of the court’s assessment of costs,
    specifically the quantum of expert witness fees.          The state of the
    record and the court’s disposition of the matter are such that we
    101
    Parker I, 
    58 F.3d at 190
     (noting that attorney’s failure
    fully to disclose relevant information regarding business
    transaction with client or to advise client to seek outside counsel
    before completing transaction may constitute breach of fiduciary
    duty if attorney/client relationship exists, regardless of whether
    attorney entered the transaction as businessman).
    60
    simply     have   no   basis   for   an    appropriate    appellate   review.
    Regrettably, the record is confused, contradictory, and incomplete
    on this issue.
    Parker insists that federal law governs, adding that the trial
    judge appears to have had no intention of awarding expert witness
    fees as costs.102      In stark contrast, Davis responds that (1) there
    is no order in the record taxing costs, and (2) as Parker failed to
    oppose the Bill of Costs submitted by Davis, as required by the
    Uniform Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the
    Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of Louisiana, he may not
    raise the issue for the first time on appeal.            Parker counters that
    (1) if the expert witness fees were never taxed, they are not
    collectible, and (2) as he was never served with a copy of the Bill
    of Costs, he could not be expected to have objected to them.
    Try as we may, we cannot sort out, from the record on appeal,
    just what was or was not ruled on by the court or what was or was
    not preserved for appeal by the parties.          As there is thus no way
    for us to make an informed and intelligent decision on the issue of
    expert witness fees and other costs at the trial level, we must
    remand this issue for further consideration and determination by
    the district court.
    I.   STOCK VALUATION
    102
    After discussing our opinion in Cates v. Sears, Roebuck &
    Co., 
    928 F.2d 679
     (5th Cir. 1991), the district court stated, “I’m
    just going to continue to deny the fee bills for the expert
    witnesses now until you come up with something different.”
    61
    In   keeping   with   the   jury’s   verdict,   the   district   court
    declared Davis to be the owner of 201,775 of the shares of common
    stock of Sanifill that Parker acquired in the merger between
    Sanifill and Campbell Wells in June 1990, or its value as of the
    close of business on April 19, 1996 —— the last business day before
    trial commenced —— with interest from the date of judgment.             The
    court ordered Parker to return those shares or their aggregate
    dollar equivalent to Davis.       Finally, the court entered judgment
    against Parker in the amount of $1,201,951.50, plus legal interest
    from the date of demand until paid, which included the amount of
    damages —— $1,026,951.50 —— that the jury found “necessary to
    compensate Davis for the loss of any benefits that he would have
    received had he owned the Campbell Wells stock, or for benefits
    that Parker wrongfully received as a result of his refusal to
    return Davis’s stock.”
    Parker contends that the award of the value of the Sanifill
    stock as of April 19, 1996 cannot be supported under Louisiana law.
    Davis originally demanded the return of the Campbell Wells stock
    transferred on February 3, 1986, but Parker insists that he no
    longer owns either that stock or the Sanifill stock received in the
    merger.   When Campbell Wells merged with Sanifill in June 1990,
    Parker surrendered all the Campbell Wells stock in his name in
    exchange for Sanifill stock.       Parker maintains that this prevents
    restoration in-kind from being an available remedy; that Davis’s
    remedy must be in money damages only.       Parker urges, however, that
    62
    measuring those damages by the value of Sanifill stock almost six
    years after the merger is neither fair nor lawful.
    To the contrary, maintains Parker, Davis may recover only a
    limited damage award.       Parker asserts that if Davis is entitled to
    annul the agreement, he is entitled to be restored to his pre-
    contract   status   only;    but   if    the   contract   is   valid   and   was
    breached, Davis is entitled to the value of the Campbell Wells
    stock as of the date the breach occurred, not at some later, higher
    value. Parker complains that awarding Davis the value of the stock
    of a multinational corporation as it stood in 1996 gives Davis a
    windfall, as the shares that he now claims to own were exchanged
    for that stock in 1990, with no evidence that he would have
    retained the stock throughout that six-year period had he owned it.
    Davis responds that he is entitled to receive the value of the
    Sanifill stock as of April 19, 1996, and that he can be awarded the
    stock in-kind, disagreeing with Parker’s contention that damages
    are the only remedy.103         Davis correctly points out that the
    traditional measure of damages for conversion —— the return of the
    property itself or, if the property cannot be returned, the value
    103
    See Parker I, 
    58 F.3d at 190
     (“Neither party has
    demonstrated that Davis could not be awarded restoration in kind
    even though the Campbell Wells stock no longer exists. At least
    one Louisiana court has suggested in a similar factual setting
    (involving a fiduciary relationship between business partners) that
    restoration in kind is possible where the shares of the original
    partnership had been exchanged for shares in a different
    partnership.”) (citing W.A. McMichael Constr. Co. v. D & W
    Properties, Inc., 
    356 So. 2d 1115
    , 124-25 (La. Ct. App.), writ
    denied, 
    359 So. 2d 198
     (La. 1978)).
    63
    of the property as of the time of conversion —— will not always
    afford an adequate remedy in cases involving equity securities.104
    Davis relies on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Quealy,
    in which the plaintiff was awarded the market value of his lost
    stock as of the day before trial, not the value of the shares on
    the date they were wrongfully converted. In so holding, that court
    stated:
    In the case of stock, which fluctuates in value, applying
    the general rule of damages will not always accomplish
    the goal of making the victim whole. Such is the case
    here.   In order for Paine Webber to fully repair the
    damage caused, it must reimburse Quealy in an amount
    sufficient to enable him to repurchase exactly what was
    lost: 1,500 shares of NEGEA stock. La.Civ.Code arts.
    2315 and 1995. The trial judge thus properly awarded
    Quealy an amount commensurate with the value of 1,500
    shares of NEGEA stock as of the day before trial.105
    We conclude that the district court did not err in awarding
    Davis recovery of either the Sanifill stock in-kind or its value as
    of the last business day before trial commenced.   Parker exercised
    total dominion over Davis’s property either through fraud or as a
    bad faith mandatary or depositary (or possibly even a negotiorum
    gestor).       The proper measure of damages is the value of the
    converted stock when Davis obtains a final, executory judgment and
    is free to proceed with execution.      Here, the shares of stock
    actually converted no longer exist, having been exchanged for other
    104
    Trahan v. First Nat’l Bank of Ruston, 
    690 F.2d 466
    , 467-68
    (5th Cir. 1982); Quealy, 
    475 So. 2d at 761-62
    .
    105
    Quealy, 
    475 So. 2d at 762
    .
    64
    stock in a subsequent merger. Accordingly, Davis cannot obtain the
    return of his original Campbell Wells shares.              Further, it now
    appears that the stock of the acquiring company, Sanifill, is no
    longer in the hands of Parker and, indeed, has been exchanged in a
    second merger. Nevertheless, Davis is entitled to judgment for the
    value of the Campbell Wells shares as converted into Sanifill
    shares (or shares resulting from their subsequent merger) if they
    are still in the hands of Parker.106         In essence, even though the
    original Campbell Wells stock no longer exists because of the
    Sanifill merger, its conversion equivalent in Sanifill stock was
    held and later disposed of by Parker, and Davis is entitled to the
    equivalent   number   of   shares   or    their   value.       Because   Parker
    wrongfully   kept   the    stock,   depriving     its   true    owner    of   the
    discretion to retain or dispose of it, in whole or in part, at such
    times as he (not Parker) might select, it is Parker (not Davis) who
    must bear the risks of its management.            Additionally, as Parker
    unilaterally elected to manage the property of Davis in bad faith
    he cannot retain any profit that was made.              The district court
    correctly determined that Parker owes Davis the value of the
    106
    Although neither party bothered to inform the court, we have
    determined that Sanifill was acquired by USA Waste Services, Inc.
    (“USA Waste”) in September 1996. We note that Sanifill’s merger
    partner is publicly traded and the information on the share ratio
    is public knowledge. Consequently, conversion of Sanifill shares
    to USA Waste shares can be calculated by means of simple
    arithmetic. If Parker is to satisfy the judgment with stock, in-
    kind, he must obtain the requisite number of shares —— albeit USA
    Waste shares, as a result of the 1996 merger —— and deliver them to
    Davis.
    65
    property at the time that the judgment is satisfied, but in no case
    less than its value at the time of Parker’s illicit acquisition.107
    J.   EXCESS DISTRIBUTIONS
    Parker contends that there is no basis in law or fact for the
    jury’s     conclusion   that   the   parties   intended   for   any   “excess
    distributions” to belong to Davis, and submits that the award is
    inconsistent with Davis’s testimony regarding his purpose for
    entering the transaction —— to pay off creditors. Moreover, Parker
    urges, even if the distributions alleged by Davis —— dividends,
    salary, travel, and entertainment —— were made,           Davis is not the
    proper party to assert such claims.        Instead, insists Parker, such
    claims belong to the corporation —— not its shareholders —— and
    especially not to a putative shareholder such as Davis.
    Davis counters that the award for excess distributions was
    entirely proper, as it represents payments received by Parker after
    he no longer had any lawful right to hold Davis’s shares.                This
    entitlement to the payments derived from ownership of the stock
    does not stem from any contractual arrangement between the parties,
    107
    If Parker still had the Campbell Wells stock, Davis could
    receive its return in kind.     Were it worth less now than when
    converted, Davis would be entitled to its return plus money for its
    diminution in value. The victim of fraud must never recover less
    than the value of the stock on the date of conversion. See Atkins
    v. Garrett, 
    270 F. 939
     (5th Cir. 1921)(in action for conversion of
    stock by a seller, brought after his refusal to make delivery on
    tender of the agreed price, the measure of recovery is the value of
    the stock at the time of conversion, and defendant cannot then
    avoid liability by a tender of the stock, which had declined in
    value).
    66
    continues Davis; neither is it contrary to his testimony regarding
    how cash flow was supposed to be used during the time Parker held
    the shares with Davis’s consent.      Moreover, insists Davis, he is
    the proper party to assert the claim for excess distributions, as
    Louisiana courts consistently recognize that shareholders possess
    a right of action to recover for injury suffered by them ——
    “personal losses” —— as a consequence of a defendant’s interference
    with their ownership of corporate stock.108
    We perceive no reversible error by the district court in
    rendering judgment based on the jury’s award of these damages. The
    jury found that Davis never stopped being the beneficial owner of
    the Campbell Wells stock.   Consequently, Parker is not entitled to
    retain these sums; rather, such monies should be returned to Davis,
    the beneficial owner of the stock, ab initio.        We also reject
    Parker’s argument that Davis is not the proper party to bring such
    108
    See Wilson v. H.J. Wilson Co., Inc., 
    430 So. 2d 1227
    , 1234
    (La. Ct. App.), writ denied, 
    437 So. 2d 1166
     (1983). In holding
    that a minority shareholder could maintain a breach of fiduciary
    action against a corporation’s majority shareholder based on its
    allegedly fraudulent transfer of the minority shareholder’s shares
    to the majority shareholder, the court declared:
    It is established that where the breach of fiduciary duty
    causes loss to a corporation itself, the suit must be
    brought as a derivative or secondary action. However,
    that is not the case where the breach of a fiduciary duty
    causes loss to a shareholder personally.      In case of
    personal loss, the shareholder may sue individually to
    recover his loss.
    
    Id.
     (citing Junker v. Crory, 
    650 F.2d 1349
     (5th Cir. 1981)); Noe v.
    Roussel, 
    310 So. 2d 806
     (La. 1975); 29 LA. L. REV. 691 (1969)).
    67
    a claim, as this is plainly an action for personal loss, and not
    one for the devaluation of corporate shares.109   The claim asserted
    by Davis is not that the disbursements were improper or excessive,
    only that they rightfully belong to him and not Parker, whether as
    preferential dividends or perquisites of ownership.     Finally, we
    note that, as Parker’s argument rests solely on the propriety of
    the award and never questions its quantum, we need not address
    whether the amount is excessive, inadequate, or “just right.”    We
    treat Parker’s failure to address the quantum of the award, or even
    provide record citations to discussions of quantum, as a waiver of
    this facet of the issue.   Neither do we consider what portion of
    these “excess distributions,” if any, Parker might have been
    entitled to receive as an owner of Campbell Wells stock in his own
    109
    Whalen v. Carter, 
    954 F.2d 1087
    , 1092 (5th Cir. 1992).
    (“Under Louisiana law, damage claims predicated upon the depletion
    of corporate assets belong to the entity, not to individual
    investors. . . . Minority shareholders, therefore, do not have a
    right of action against the officers and directors of their
    corporation for the devaluation of corporate shares.”).         In
    Palowsky v. Premier Bancorp, Inc., 
    597 So. 2d 543
     (La. Ct. App.
    1992), the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal construed the
    holding in Wilson to mean that
    if a shareholder suffers only an indirect loss in the
    form of a decline in the value of his stock resulting
    from a loss sustained by the corporation due to
    mismanagement and/or breaches of fiduciary duty, that
    shareholder may only bring a derivative action on behalf
    of the corporation. However, if the breach of fiduciary
    duty causes a direct loss to the shareholder, as was the
    case in Wilson where the shareholder, but not the
    corporation, suffered a loss, that shareholder may have
    a right to sue individually.
    
    Id. at 545
     (distinguishing Wilson, 
    430 So. 2d 1227
    ).
    68
    right, as this argument has not been raised on appeal.
    K.   CROSS-APPEAL
    Davis filed a motion to alter or amend judgment, pursuant to
    F.R.C.P. Rule 59(e), requesting that the district court modify its
    judgment to declare him to be the owner of, and order Parker to
    return, 201,775 shares of common stock of Sanifill or, at Davis’s
    option, their dollar value calculated at the rate of $41 5/8 per
    share ($8,398,884), with interest from the date of judgment.
    Davis’s motion requested, in the alternative, that the district
    court amend its judgment to declare that he was the owner of, and
    Parker was required to return, the same number of shares of common
    stock of Sanifill or, in the event that the value of the shares on
    the date of their return is less than $41 5/8 per share, their
    total dollar value calculated at that amount.      Finally, Davis
    requested that the district court add to its decree a provision
    reserving to him the right to claim damages resulting from any
    decline in value of the Sanifill stock from the highest price the
    stock might attain between the dates of the entry of judgment and
    the stock’s return.
    The district court denied Davis’s motion.    In its June 21,
    1996 minute entry, the court “ordered the parties to prepare an
    order to transfer two hundred one thousand, seven hundred seventy-
    five (201,775) shares of common stock of Sanifill, Inc. to the
    United States Marshal to hold as receiver, or, in the alternative,
    the cash value of such stock as of Friday, April 19, 1996, to the
    69
    Clerk of Court.” The court further ordered that “[t]he stock shall
    be transferred to the Marshal or the cash shall be placed with the
    Clerk   no    later   than   Friday,   June   28,   1996.”   Then,   in   its
    memorandum ruling and order of June 26, 1996, filed on June 27th,
    the district court stayed its judgment pending disposition of
    Parker’s post-trial motions, but conditioned the stay on Parker’s
    delivery of the shares to the United States Marshal or his deposit
    of $8,398,884.30 in cash with the Clerk of Court by June 28, 1996.
    Davis contends that the district court abused its discretion
    by not either (1) giving Davis, rather than Parker, the option to
    choose between being paid or recovering the stock in-kind, or
    (2) allowing Parker to pay the value of the stock in lieu of
    returning it in-kind only in the event that the stock’s value on
    the day before trial shall have been greater than on the date of
    return.      Davis essentially argues that Parker must not be able to
    use this appeal to speculate in the stock and profit from a delay
    in his satisfaction of the judgment; rather, Davis advances, “the
    risk must borne by the one who has wrongfully held the stock,”
    i.e., Parker.     Davis further urges that any increase in the market
    value of the stock belongs to him, but any decline in market value
    during the time the stock was unlawfully held by Parker must be
    absorbed by Parker.          Finally, Davis asserts that the judgment
    should have been amended to reserve his right to bring a separate
    action for any damages that he might suffer as a result of Parker’s
    delay in satisfaction of the judgment, again insisting that Parker
    70
    must bear any risk of loss attendant on such a delay.
    Parker    responds   that     Davis’s   argument    is   flawed   in   two
    respects: First, as Parker no longer owns the stock, he is not in
    a position to speculate with it by returning it only if it is in
    his financial interest to do so; and second, if the stock cannot be
    returned, Davis’s remedy is damages which, Parker maintains, were
    fixed by the court at the most favorable point Davis could have
    imagined.    Any effort to receive the value of the stock beyond that
    remedy, insists Parker, would be an action for damages, not for
    stock return, thereby making this case exactly what Davis contended
    it was not on the first appeal to escape the legal malpractice
    prescription.110
    We    conclude   that   the   district   court     did   not   abuse   its
    discretion in giving Parker the option of delivering the stock or
    its value.    We agree with Davis, however, that Parker should not be
    able to profit from any appreciation in the value of the stock
    during the pendency of this appeal.           Accordingly, if Parker has
    failed timely to (1) file a supersedeas bond, (2) pay the money to
    the Clerk of Court, or (3) transfer the stock to the United States
    110
    Davis responds that, in an action for rescission based on
    nullity, “[t]he restoration of the parties to the situation that
    existed before the contract that is called for by this Article
    [Article 2033] includes restoration of the fruits and revenues, as
    any unjust enrichment of the parties must be prevented.” LA. CIV.
    CODE. ANN. art. 2033, cmt. b (West 1987). As such, Davis insists
    that his demand that Parker not be permitted to profit by
    speculation from this appeal is part and parcel of his rescission
    remedy.
    71
    Marshal, as ordered, such that the judgment remains unsatisfied,
    then reason, equity, and justice require a supplemental provision
    to the district court’s judgment.    For, if Parker thus elected to
    take an appeal but to do nothing about paying the judgment into the
    registry of the court, delivering the stock to the Marshal, or
    posting a supersedeas bond, he must bear any risk of downward
    fluctuation, and Davis must recover the benefit of any upward
    fluctuation, in the value of the stock.   Therefore, if, in lieu of
    delivering the stock, Parker elects to pay the value of the stock,
    then any appreciation in its value from June 28, 1996 must be added
    to the amount of the judgment, $8,398,884.30; but if the value of
    the stock has never been that high since June 28, 1996, Parker may
    not thereby benefit by electing to deliver the shares of stock ——
    unless he supplements such delivery with remittance of funds (or
    additional shares of stock) so as to bring the value of the
    delivery up to full judgment value as of the time of delivery.
    Parker should, of course, receive credit for any funds that Davis
    may have acquired or may hereafter acquire in executing on the
    judgment.111
    111
    As noted in note 106 supra, Sanifill was acquired by USA
    Waste in September 1996. This fact, however, does not alter our
    disposition as to this issue. Assuming that Parker has neither
    deposited the money nor an equivalent number of shares in Sanifill,
    or its successor USA Waste, the judgment must be amended, but only
    to the extent required to allow for fluctuations in the stock price
    during the time between the date originally specified for delivery
    (June 28, 1996) and the date on which Davis finally recovers the
    money, if that is what he recovers in lieu of the equivalent shares
    of stock in the appropriate successor entity. In this regard, we
    72
    III
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
    in favor of Davis is affirmed, subject to the following:
    A.   The award to Davis of nonpecuniary damages for
    emotional distress is reversed, and the award
    to Davis of attorneys’ fees is reduced by
    $58,333 to reflect the effect of disallowing
    such nonpecuniary damages.
    B.   To the extent, if any, that the award of costs
    to Davis may include expert witness fees, such
    award is vacated and the issue of such fees is
    remanded to the district court for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    C.   The award to Davis of 201,775 shares of the
    common stock of Sanifill, Inc., in-kind, is
    modified to permit the substitution of shares
    of the common stock of USA Waste Services,
    Inc., with the number of such shares to be the
    same as were received for 201,775 shares of
    Sanifill, Inc. stock in the merger of those
    corporations in September 1996, adjusted to
    reiterate that Davis will be entitled to recover the highest value
    of the stock between the day delivery was ordered and the date of
    actual recovery.
    73
    account for any subsequent stock splits, stock
    dividends, and the like.
    D.   The alternative monetary award to Davis in the
    amount of $8,398,884.30, being the value of
    201,775 shares of Sanifill, Inc. common stock
    on the day before the commencement date of the
    trial of this case, is modified by adding the
    proviso that, in the event that Parker should
    satisfy the judgment of the district court by
    paying money in lieu of delivery of capital
    stock in-kind, the sum of money that he must
    pay shall be the greater of (1) $8,398,884, or
    (2)   an    amount      calculated     by     multiplying
    201,775 by the highest price for a share of
    Sanifill, Inc. common stock (or, after its
    merger     with   USA   Waste     Services,     Inc.,    the
    number of shares or fractional shares of that
    corporation       obtained   for    one   (1)    share    of
    Sanifill, Inc. common stock in that merger,
    adjusted for stock splits, stock dividends,
    and the like) as quoted by any exchange on
    which such stock was or is traded, between
    June 28, 1996, and the date on which final
    payment in full is made in satisfaction of the
    judgment in this case.
    74
    We remand this case to the district court to revisit the issue
    of expert witness fees and to enter a revised judgment reflecting
    the foregoing modifications.
    REVERSED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part; MODIFIED in part;
    and, as modified, AFFIRMED in part.
    75