JASMIJN BOL vs. versus BREDA, LLC

JASMIJN BOL
VERSUS
BREDA, LLC
*
*
*
*
* * * * * * *
NO. 2026-CA-0137
COURT OF APPEAL
FOURTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2021-03245, DIVISION “M”
Honorable Paulette R. Irons, Judge
* * * * * *
Judge Daniel L. Dysart
* * * * * *
(Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart,
Judge Paula A. Brown)
Abid Hussain
HUSSAIN LAW LLC
3445 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 706
Metairie, LA 70002
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
Michael G Bagneris
John O. Pieksen, Jr.
BAGNERIS, PIEKSEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
935 Gravier Street, Suite 2110
Suite 2110
New Orleans, LA 70112
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
VACATED AND REMANDED
OCTOBER 21, 2026

-- 1 of 14 --

This case involves the judicial dissolution of a limited liability company,
Breda, LLC. The parties to this appeal are the two members of Breda, LLC,
Michael Schexnayder, the appellant herein, and Jasmijn Bol, the appellee herein.
The judgment appealed from granted the motion filed by Patrick Gros, the court-
appointed liquidator, to approve his final report and proposed distribution, and to
discharge and release him following his filing of the final notice of dissolution. For
reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand this
matter for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
Breda, LLC was co-owned equally by its two members, Jasmijn Bol and
Michael Schexnayder. Ms. Bol and Mr. Schexnayder had a personal relationship
during which time they established Breda, LLC in 2016 as a vehicle for managing
two rental properties they co-owned. The parties ended their personal relationship
in late 2018, and began the process of separating their assets. On April 14, 2021,
1 This appeal record also includes the records from the previous appeals in this matter. The
records from those appeals, 2023-CA-0462 and 2024-CA-0715, were submitted as exhibits in the
instant appeal.
DLD
RLB
PAB

-- 2 of 14 --

3
Ms. Bol filed a petition against Breda, LLC, seeking judicial dissolution pursuant
to La. R.S. 12:1335.2 In her petition, Ms. Bol alleged that she had made several
loans to capitalize the company during the parties’ personal relationship, and that
as of the date of the filing of the petition, Breda, LLC, through Mr. Schexnayder,
had failed to make any repayment of those loans. The petition stated claims for
breach of contract, or alternatively, unjust enrichment, dissolution pursuant to La.
R.S. 12:1335 and damages.
Breda, LLC answered Ms. Bol’s petition, asserting that the company
operated through both members, and that there was no operating agreement that
would allow one member or the other to be responsible for the company’s actions.
Ms. Bol then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking for judgment
that she was a member of Breda, LLC, and was therefore entitled to demand its
dissolution. Ms. Bol’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted in part,
holding that she was a member of Breda, LLC, but denied in part, holding that she
was not entitled to an order of dissolution based on her motion for partial summary
judgment.
Ms. Bol subsequently filed a motion for dissolution, reimbursement and
appointment of a liquidator. She asked for an order dissolving Breda, LLC,
reimbursing her for her share of the assets and appointing an independent
administrator to administer the liquidation of Breda, LLC. Mr. Schexnayder
2 La. R.S. 12:1335 states:
On application by or for a member, any court of competent jurisdiction may decree dissolution of
a limited liability company whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in
conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.

-- 3 of 14 --

4
opposed the motion. The trial court rendered judgment on March 23, 2023,
granting the motion and ordering the dissolution of Breda, LLC. The court further
ordered the appointment of Desiree Charbonnet as liquidator of the company, and
empowered her to liquidate its assets, pay off debts and distribute the remaining
assets to Ms. Bol and Mr. Schexnayder. The court ordered Mr. Schexnayder, as
the former manager of Breda, LLC, to provide a full accounting of all income,
expenses and assets of the company, and ordered Ms. Bol to provide all financial
records she possessed that were related to the company. Both parties were ordered
to comply with these orders within 45 days of the signing of the trial court’s
judgment. Breda, LLC appealed the trial court’s judgment.
On appeal of that order, this Court initially reversed the trial court’s
judgment and remanded the matter for a full contradictory hearing, finding that the
trial court erred in not conducting a full contradictory hearing on the merits and
granting dissolution of Breda, LLC. However, on application for rehearing, this
Court was presented with evidence that a full contradictory hearing had been
conducted but was not reflected in the record. This Court ordered supplementation
of the record with the transcript of that hearing, and considered the merits of the
appeal. The application for rehearing was granted, and this Court affirmed the trial
court’s March 23, 2023 judgment. Bol v. Breda, LLC, 23-0462 (La.App. 4 Cir.
1/31/24), 382 So.3d 439, (on reh’g) (Feb. 28, 2024).
This matter came before this Court again following the trial court’s granting
of a joint motion to clarify and set the liquidator’s powers and duties. The joint

-- 4 of 14 --

5
motion was filed after the court-appointed liquidator, Ms. Charbonnet, filed an “Ex
Parte Motion to Substitute Court Appointed Liquidator,” and the trial court
appointed Patrick Gros as the substitute liquidator. The motion to clarify was filed
jointly by Ms. Bol and Mr. Gros, in his capacity as liquidator of Breda, LLC. Mr.
Schexnayder opposed the motion.
Prior to Ms. Charbonnet’s filing of her Ex Parte motion, she filed a motion
for contempt against Mr. Schexnayder, asking that he be held in contempt and
ordered to immediately provide requested information to her as liquidator. One of
the items supporting her motion for contempt was Mr. Schexnayder’s alleged
failure to comply with her request to disable the two-step authentication process
needed for Ms. Charbonnet to access the Capital One bank account of Breda, LLC.
She further noted that counsel for Ms. Bol had provided Ms. Charbonnet with
notifications that reflected that the account was overdrawn at that time.
The trial court granted the joint motion to clarify and set the liquidator’s
powers and duties as stated in the motion. Breda, LLC appealed the judgment
granting the motion. This Court converted the appeal to a supervisory writ,
granted the writ and denied relief. Bol v. Breda, 24-0715 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/16/25),
414 So.3d 1086.
In the current matter, Mr. Schexnayder appealed the November 20, 2025
trial court judgment, which granted the motion filed by the liquidator, Mr. Gros, to
approve his final report and proposed distribution, and also granted his motion to
discharge and release the liquidator. Prior to the filing of this motion, the

-- 5 of 14 --

6
liquidator oversaw the sale of the two rental properties owned by Breda, LLC.
According to Mr. Gros and his attorney, attempts were made by them to obtain
from Mr. Schexnayder, the former manager of Breda, LLC, underlying source
documents, including bank statements, regarding the finances of Breda, LLC. In
Mr. Gros’ motion, he alleged that Mr. Schexnayder did not provide any bank
information so Mr. Gros was not able to subpoena any banks for records. He
further alleged that Ms. Bol did not know if the company had a bank account.
In the motion, Mr. Gros stated that following the liquidation of Breda,
LLC’s assets, he determined that the amount of the unreimbursed loans made to
Breda, LLC by Ms. Bol exceeded the amount of the net proceeds available to
distribute to the two members. Accordingly, he recommended in his report that all
of the estimated net liquidation proceeds be paid to Ms. Bol. Mr. Gros also
requested an adverse presumption as to all information requested by him from Mr.
Schexnayder but not delivered to him.
Mr. Schexnayder opposed Mr. Gros’ motion. In response to Mr. Gros’
statement in the motion that “[b]ecause Mr. Schexnayder did not provide any bank
information, Liquidator was not able to subpoena any banks for bank records. Ms.
Bol did not know if the Company possessed a bank account…,” Mr. Schexnayder
argued that he assumed Mr. Gros was already in possession of the bank statements
of Breda, LLC. His assumption was based on the fact that a list of items provided
to the prior liquidator, Ms. Charbonnet, by Mr. Schexnayder’s counsel on October
18, 2023 named Capital One Bank as the banking institution used by Breda, LLC,

-- 6 of 14 --

7
and provided the username and password for the account. In an email dated
November 27, 2023 from Ms. Charbonnet to counsel for both parties, she
referenced the Capital One account and informed Mr. Schexnayder’s counsel that
it was necessary that Mr. Schexnayder disable the two-step authentication process
to allow her to access the account. She also stated in that email that counsel for
Ms. Bol had provided her with notifications that reflected that the account was
overdrawn at that time.
Furthermore, Mr. Schexnayder claimed that at a contempt hearing on
January 11, 2024,3 Ms. Charbonnet was provided with everything she needed to
access the banking information of Breda, LLC. Mr. Schexnayder assumed that the
information he provided to Ms. Charbonnet was given to Mr. Gros by Ms.
Charbonnet when Mr. Gros was appointed as the substitute liquidator.
In challenging Ms. Bol’s statement that she did not know if the company had
a bank account, Mr. Schexnayder noted that the statements for the Breda, LLC
account at Capital One were mailed to Ms. Bol’s home address and Ms. Bol was
given credit by Mr. Gros for payments on bank overdrafts. Mr. Schexnayder
argued that the banking history of Breda, LLC is essential to a fair distribution of
the remaining funds, and urged the trial court to conduct a contradictory hearing on
the issue of the distribution of the funds after learning that neither liquidator
obtained the company’s banking records even though they knew or should have
known they existed.
3 The transcript of the January 11, 2024 hearing is not in the record.

-- 7 of 14 --

8
After discovering that Mr. Gros had prepared his final report without having
the bank records, Mr. Schexnayder obtained Breda, LLC bank statements for
January 2017 through March 2024, and attached them to his opposition. Also
attached to his opposition are documents identified by Mr. Schexnayder as
excerpts from Mr. Gros’ final report.4 Included in one of the excerpts is the
statement, “throughout the liquidation proceedings, there was no information to
support the fact that the Company had a bank account open, nor which bank in
which an account might exist.”
Two hearings were held on Mr. Gros’ motion to approve his final report and
proposed distribution, and to discharge and release the liquidator. Following the
second hearing, the trial court rendered judgment on November 20, 2025, granting
Mr. Gros’ motion. Mr. Schexnayder appealed the trial court judgment.
In reasons for judgment, the trial court rejected Mr. Schexnayder’s request to
compel the liquidator to analyze the banking information he submitted to the court
after discovering it was not considered in Mr. Gros’ report, and to produce a new
report and proposed distribution. The court found that Mr. Schexnayder had
demonstrated a history of resistance and reluctance to cooperate with the opposing
party regarding the liquidation. The trial court stated:
Based on his actions, the Court finds that Mr. Schexnayder
either deliberately failed to cooperate with the new liquidator or is at
least interested in dragging on the liquidation process. The Court
finds that extending the liquidation by compelling Mr. Gros to analyze
the new banking information and generate a new report would cause
an unnecessary delay and impose a financial strain on all involved
4 While the motion contains the proposed contents of Mr. Gros’ final report, the final report itself
is not in the record other than the above-mentioned excerpts.

-- 8 of 14 --

9
parties. Mr. Schexnayder has had many opportunities to provide Mr.
Gros with the requested information. The Court finds it disingenuous
for him to suddenly produce the information only after discovering
that the liquidator’s report was not in his favor. As such, the Court
will approve the liquidator’s final report and his final distribution
proposal.
On appeal, Mr. Schexnayder asserts two assignments of error:
1) The trial court’s appointed liquidators failed to obtain Breda,
LLC’s bank statements, which were needed to properly trace the
company’s financial history; and
2) The trial court failed to recognize that, without bank statements,
the reimbursement/distribution component of Mr. Gros’ report was
flawed, requiring that the remaining funds of Breda, LLC, be
evenly divided between the co-owners.
DISCUSSION
“A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s or a jury’s finding of fact
in the absence of ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong,’ and where there is
a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable
inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate
court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences as are reasonable.” Rosell v.
ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989).
Mr. Schexnayder states in his appeal brief that he is only appealing the trial
court’s judgment as it relates to reimbursement and distribution of funds. We will
address Mr. Schexnayder’s two assignments of error together as they both allege
error with the trial court’s approval of Mr. Gros’ final report given the fact that it
was prepared without the bank statements of Breda, LLC.
While the record in the instant appeal and the records in the two prior
appeals in this matter demonstrate a lack of full cooperation by Mr. Schexnayder in

-- 9 of 14 --

10
this liquidation process, the fact remains that he provided the first liquidator, Ms.
Charbonnet, with banking information for Breda, LLC. In an email exchange
between Mr. Schexnayder’s counsel and Ms. Charbonnet in October, 2023, Ms.
Charbonnet requested and Mr. Schexnayder provided her with the bank name,
Capital One, and username and password for the Breda, LLC bank account. In a
motion for contempt filed by Ms. Charbonnet against Mr. Schexnayder on
December 11, 2023,5 Ms. Charbonnet referred to the Capital One account and
requested that Mr. Schexnayder take further steps to allow her to access the
account.
At the November 18, 2025 hearing in the instant appeal, counsel for Mr.
Schexnayder stated that at the January 2024 contempt hearing (prior to Mr. Gros’
appointment as liquidator), problems that Ms. Charbonnet was having accessing
the Capital One bank account were addressed and Mr. Schexnayder and his
counsel were under the impression that Ms. Charbonnet was then able to access the
account.6 Both parties have alleged that they did not have the bank statements in
their possession when those were requested of them by Ms. Charbonnet.
Mr. Gros testified at both the August 21, 2025 and November 18, 2025
hearings. At the August hearing, he stated he first received the bank statements
two weeks before that hearing. He said Ms. Bol provided information to him about
5 The motion for contempt is located in the record in one of the previous appeals in this matter,
2024-CA-0715.
6 The transcript of the January 11, 2024 contempt hearing is not included in the record. Mr.
Schexnayder’s counsel stated at the November 18, 2025 hearing that Ms. Charbonnet also
needed a code to access the bank account online, and that Ms. Charbonnet was unaware that the
code would have been sent to Ms. Bol’s phone because she was the first name on the account.

-- 10 of 14 --

11
Breda, LLC’s finances through a ledger and receipts. He testified, “I have never
seen the bank statements at all.”
At the November 18, 2025 hearing, Mr. Gros testified that he met with Ms.
Charbonnet after he was appointed as liquidator in March of 2024. He testified
that she gave him all of the information that she said she had and detailed the
liquidation process to him. He then hired a real estate professional and took the
necessary steps to sell the two rental properties owned by Breda, LLC, and
deposited the proceeds of those sales in his trust account. He identified all of the
information relevant to his liquidation process, and these items were introduced
into evidence. He stated that he completed his final report on May 15, 2025, and
recommended that all of the net proceeds of the liquidation go to Ms. Bol based
upon his review of the documents supplied by both parties. His final report was
not admitted into evidence and is not contained in this appeal record (other than the
excerpts attached to Mr. Schexnayder’s opposition to Mr. Gros’ motion to approve
his final report and proposed distribution).
The following exchange occurred between Mr. Gros and his counsel:
Q. Did you request information from both Ms. Bol’s counsel and Mr.
Schexnayder’s counsel regarding the financial state and affairs of the
company?
A. Yes. In fact, the ideal situation is to get bank statements, but we did not
get bank statements until August 6th.
When Mr. Gros was questioned about the email that counsel for Mr.
Schexnayder sent to Ms. Charbonnet setting forth the bank name, username and
password on the Breda, LLC bank account, Mr. Gros stated that he had not seen

-- 11 of 14 --

12
this email until it was attached to Mr. Schexnayder’s opposition to Mr. Gros’
motion to approve his final report. The following exchange then occurred between
counsel for Mr. Schexnayder and Mr. Gros:
Q. If you were presented with that information early on, would
you have then sought the bank statements?
A. Oh, yes, sir. – I would have got them and I would have done
just what - - I would have went through and probably created the
books and figured out what the profit and loss was and where the
money went and who distributed the money already and anything like
that.
Q. And without that having been done we do not know what
kind of impact it would have had on your bottom line in your report?
A. That is correct. I do not really know.
Mr. Gros testified that he was not aware of the January 11, 2024 contempt
hearing, which was held prior to his appointment as liquidator.
He stated:
The only information I had when talking to Mr. Hussain [Ms.
Bol’s counsel] he mentioned that he had requested this type of
information multiple times and that he did not receive it. I asked
about bank accounts. It is the core behind the accounting. It is what
we do in developing everything.
He also stated that when he asked about a bank account, he was told that Ms. Bol
was not aware of one.
Mr. Gros was then asked:
Q. With the information if a liquidator is made aware and given
the tools to access the bank account, then that is the duty of the
liquidator, correct?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
When questioned again by his counsel, Mr. Gros was asked:

-- 12 of 14 --

13
Q. Mr. Gros, when you took over the liquidation from Ms.
Charbonnet, did you ask her for anything?
A. Yes. All documents she had and any records - - any bank
records because that is critical.
M. Gros testified that when he went to Ms. Charbonnet’s office, he received
a thumb drive from Ms. Charbonnet’s assistant, who told him it contained all of the
documents that Ms. Charbonnet had relating to the liquidation. When he spoke to
Ms. Charbonnet on the phone, they discussed bank records and she told him she
did not have any bank records.
The record establishes that Mr. Schexnayder provided the first liquidator,
Ms. Charbonnet, with information regarding the Breda, LLC bank account,
including the bank name, Capital One, and the username and password for that
account. While that information was evidently not sufficient to allow Ms.
Charbonnet access to the account without further information, the record shows
that she was made aware by Mr. Schexnayder that Breda, LLC had a bank account
at Capital One. It is undisputed that Mr. Gros was not provided with any
information regarding that bank account or even whether or not a bank account
existed for Breda, LLC.
We find that it was reasonable for Mr. Schexnayder and his counsel to
assume that the information they provided to Ms. Charbonnet regarding the Capital
One account was forwarded to Mr. Gros after his appointment as the substitute
liquidator. While the information they provided may have been incomplete, it was
sufficient to alert Ms. Charbonnet of the existence of a bank account. This

-- 13 of 14 --

14
information was not provided to Mr. Gros even though, according to Mr. Gros, he
specifically asked Ms. Charbonnet about bank records.
Furthermore, as detailed above, the testimony of Mr. Gros demonstrates that
examination of a company’s banking records is an essential element of a proper
liquidation and distribution process. His testimony included statements that “the
ideal situation is to get bank statements,” and that bank statements are “the core
behind the accounting.” He also testified that he asked Ms. Charbonnet for “[a]ll
documents she had and any records - - any bank records because that is critical.”
Additionally, he acknowledged that he did not know what impact the bank
statements would have had on his report.
Based on the record before us, we find that the trial court erred in approving
Mr. Gros’ final report and proposed distribution at this time. We further find that
an extension of the liquidation process to have Mr. Gros analyze the Breda, LLC
banking information and generate a new report is necessary for a fair distribution
of the remaining funds.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we find the trial court erred in granting the
motion of the court-appointed liquidator to approve his final report and proposed
distribution, and discharging and releasing the liquidator. Accordingly, we vacate
the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 14 of 14 --