The Guide Company, LLC v. Madison Parish Hospital Service District d/b/a Madison Parish Hospital

No. 56,469-CA (La. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2025) · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · November 26, 2025 · No. 56,469-CA

Summary

The Louisiana Second Circuit reviews a breach-of-contract dispute between The Guide Company, LLC and Madison Parish Hospital Service District concerning consulting services and monthly fees. The court reverses the trial court's award of $28,000 to Guide and dismissal of Madison's reconventional demand, concluding that Guide failed to prove an enforceable agreement and performance of its contractual obligations and that a presumption of simulation applied to Madison's reimbursement claim. The court also rejects Madison's argument concerning unlicensed lobbying.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Stone, J.; Robinson, J.; Hunter, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Decision date
November 26, 2025
Docket number
56,469-CA
Procedural posture
Guide sued Madison for breach of a consulting contract and sought unpaid consulting fees. Madison reconvened for restitution of amounts previously paid. After a bench trial, the district court awarded Guide $28,000, denied attorney fees, and dismissed Madison's reconventional demand with prejudice. Madison appealed.
Standard of review
The existence of a contract is a factual finding reviewed under the manifest-error/clearly-wrong standard. Reversal requires finding both that no reasonable factual basis exists for the trial court's finding and that the finding is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Credibility determinations receive great deference, but may be rejected when documents or objective evidence so contradict testimony, or the testimony is so internally inconsistent or implausible, that a reasonable factfinder could not credit it. The reconventional demand was reviewed de novo because the record was complete and the appellate court reversed the trial court's credibility determinations.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Madison Parish Hospital Service District d/b/a Madison Parish Hospital v. The Guide Company, LLC
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

breach of contractcontract formationunjust enrichmentmunicipal lawstandard of review

Practice areas

ContractsCommercial litigationMunicipal lawEvidenceAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court improperly relied on evidence outside the record.
  2. Whether Guide proved the existence of a valid and enforceable consulting contract.
  3. Whether Guide proved that it performed its contractual obligations during the months for which it sought payment.
  4. Whether the contract was absolutely null because it was a simulated donation or lacked a lawful cause under the Louisiana Constitution's prohibition on donations of public assets.
  5. Whether Paxton's services constituted unlicensed lobbying.
  6. Whether Madison was entitled to recover amounts previously paid to Guide under its reconventional demand.

Holdings

  1. Guide failed to prove that the consulting agreement was a valid, enforceable contract because the testimony supporting its formation and performance was not credible and the surrounding circumstances created a highly reasonable suspicion that the arrangement was not an arms-length bargain.
  2. Even assuming the agreement was enforceable, Guide failed to prove that it performed its contractual obligations during the last four months for which it sought payment and therefore was not entitled to the $28,000 award.
  3. The agreement was absolutely null because the totality of the evidence created a highly reasonable suspicion that Madison's payments were not supported by an arms-length exchange of consideration and constituted a donation in disguise.
  4. Madison was entitled to recover the amounts it paid to Guide, subject to an offset for eight invoices for which Guide proved that it performed services.
  5. Madison's unlicensed-lobbying argument lacked merit because the record did not establish that Paxton's or Guide's conduct fell within a statutory definition of lobbying.

Key quotations

A rebuttable presumption of simulation may arise: The burden is initially upon the one alleging…simulation to prove this claim…[However], a jurisprudential presumption of simulation arises when the evidence establishes the existence of facts and circumstances which create a highly reasonable doubt as to the reality of the putative sale. (at 25-26)
The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED. Guide’s claims against Madison are dismissed with prejudice. Madison’s reconventional demand is granted. (at 33)

Factual background

Madison entered a consulting agreement with Guide in April 2019, under which Madison agreed to pay $6,000 per month, later increased to $7,000, for governmental and public-relations consulting. Guide was owned by Sonny Paxton's wife, and Paxton claimed to have helped Madison with Medicaid reclassification, a USDA loan, land acquisition, and a proposed behavioral-health partnership. After Madison's CEO, Dr. Ted Topolewski, was terminated in October 2022, Madison terminated the agreement and stopped paying Guide's invoices; Guide offered little or no documentary evidence of services allegedly performed during the disputed months. The appellate court found the testimony of Paxton and Topolewski internally inconsistent and unsupported, and found the arrangement's perpetual monthly payments and undocumented performance created a highly reasonable suspicion that it was not an arms-length bargain.

Procedural history

The Sixth Judicial District Court for Madison Parish held a bench trial on June 26, 2024. On December 17, 2024, it awarded Guide $28,000 for unpaid consulting fees, denied Guide's attorney-fee claim, and dismissed Madison's reconventional demand. The court of appeal reversed both portions of the judgment, dismissed Guide's claims with prejudice, granted Madison's reconventional demand, and rendered judgment for Madison in the amount of $242,278.

Remand instructions

Although the docket disposition described the judgment as reversed and rendered, the opinion states that remand was unnecessary because the record was complete. The appellate court dismissed Guide's claims with prejudice, granted Madison's reconventional demand, and rendered judgment for Madison in the amount of $242,278.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…