* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should n ot be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances

set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-30445

Summary Calendar

_______________

In the Matter of:

CHARLOTTE A. DORLAND,

Debtor.

CHARLOTTE A DORLAND,

Appellant,

VERSUS

RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY, INC., and ARLENE L. CREELY,

Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-2200-L)

_________________________ December 26, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: *1 Creely and Right Up Your Alley, Inc., collectively, are referred to

hereinafter as “Creely”).

2 The default judgment noted in pertinent part that “IT IS ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and

against the defendant, Charle y A. Dorand, on the allegations of breach of

contract, negligence, conversion, payment of a thing not due, unfair and

deceptive trade practices, fraud, and open account.”

2 In this bank ruptcy action, the debtor, Charlotte Dorland,

appeals the district court’s determination that a Louisiana state

court default judgment has precl usive effect on appellees’ disc hargeability action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Finding no

error, we affirm.

I.

Arlene Creely retained Dorland in 1990 to perf orm various

a ccounting and tax services on her behalf and on behalf of he r

business, Right Up Your Alley, Inc. 1 After terminating the

employment relationship in January 1992, Creely sued Dorland in

Louisiana state court, alleging breach of contract, negligence,

conversion, payment of a thing not due, unfair and deceptive trade

practices, fraud, and open account. When Dorland failed to answer

the complaint, the state court held an evidentiary hearing and

rendered a default judgm ent in favor of Creely, awarding actual

damages, general damages, and attorneys’ fees. 2

Subsequent to this adv erse judgment, Dorland filed in March

1993 a voluntary chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Pursuant to

11 U.S.C. § 523, Creely filed a complaint to determine discharge-3 Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge any debts “'to the extent

obtained by

. . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other

than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.'”

See RecoverEdge L.P. v. Pentecost , 44 F.3d 1284, 1292 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)). Because Dorland does not appeal the district court’s

finding that fraud under Louisiana law is tantamount to “actual fraud” under

§ U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), we assume as much for the purposes of this appeal.

3 ability of debt in the bankruptcy court, arguing that the state

court judgment with respect to fraud was entitled to collateral

estoppel effect in the di schargeability determination. The

bankruptcy co urt denied Creely’s summary judgment motion on

collateral estoppel, finding that the state court had not made

subordinate, factual findings in support of its default judgment.

The district co urt affirmed the bankruptcy court originally and

then, upon motion for rehearing, reversed the bankruptcy c ourt,

finding that the court was required on the basis of collateral

estoppel to give p reclusive effect to the Louisiana state court

judgment.

II.

Dorland argues that the district court erred in giving

preclusive effect to a Louisiana state court default judgment in

its determination that t he debts to Creely are nondischargeable

under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). 3 We review the district court’s

conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear

error. See Allison v. Roberts (In re Allison) , 960 F.2d 481, 483

(5th Cir. 1992).4

We are required, under the Full Faith and Credit Act,

28 U.S.C. § 1738, to accord state court judgments the same

preclusive effect that is provided by the law of the state in which

the judgment was rendered. S ee A.L.T. Corp. v. Small Business

Admin.

, 801 F.2d 1451, 1455 (5th Cir. 1986). Under Louisiana law,

collateral estoppel ba r s relitigation of “'any issue actually

litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that

judgment.'” S tate Dep't of Social Serv. v. Matthews , 615 So. 2d

1112, 1113 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1993) (citing L A

. R EV

. S TA T

. A N N

.

§ 13:4331(3) (West 1991)).

Dorland contends that, because the state court entered a

default judgment, the fraud claim was neither “actually litigated”

nor “essential to that judgment.” According to Dorland, “the state

court simply awarded judgment, repeating in cursory and mechanical

fashion the language of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

. . . There is

simply no way of knowing which grounds were seriously considered by

the state court nor which were co nsidered essential to its

judgment.” Furthermore, Dorland argues that, notwithstanding the

award of actual damages, special damages, and attorneys’ fees, all

three of which are recoverable together only upon a finding of

fraud, we cannot infer from this award that the court actually

found fraud.

“It is well established that in obtaining a default judgment,

the plaintiff must present competent evidence to support each4 This is an unusual posture in w hich to raise a challenge under the

“necessary to that judgment” prong of the collateral estoppel test. Typically,

such challenges arise where a litigant seeks to estop the re-litigation of one

element of an ultimate claim, whereas here the challenge is to the claim itself.

See, e.g., Ebey v. Harvill

, 647 So. 2d 461, 464 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1994) (noting

that a claimant’s statement regarding paternity made in a previous divorce action

5 element of his causes as fully as though each of the allegations in

the petition were [ sic ] denied by defendant.” C ollins v. Estrade

,

638 So. 2d 275, 277 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1994). Thus, under

Louisiana law, a default judgment requires that the plaintiff make

out a prima facie case for each of the claims alleged. S ee L A

. C ODE

C IV

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 1702A (West 1991).

It is evident from the state court’s final order that the

court considered the fraud allegations and that, as a pre-condition

to awarding a default judgment with respect to the fraud claim, the

court determined that Creely had successfully proved the p rima

facie case for fraud. An issue that is properly raised, by the

pleadings or otherwise, and that is submitted for determination and

is actually d etermined is “actually litigated” for purposes of

collateral estoppel. S ee Garner v. Lehrer (In re Garner)

, 56 F.3d

677, 680 (5th Cir. 1995) (applying the same default j udgment

standard under Texas law as is applicab le to Louisiana law).

Hence, we disagree with D orland that the state court “simply

awarded judgment” without determining first that Cre ely had

“actually litigated” the elements of fraud.

We similarly reject Dorland's argument that the fraud finding

was not “essential to that judgment.” 4 The district court foundis not preclusive in a subsequent action because paternity was not essential to

the final judgment in the divorce proceedings).

6 that because the court awarded Creely its full actual damages,

general damages, and atto rneys’ fees, all three of which are

available under Louisiana law under a finding of fraud only, the

fraud finding was essential to the default judgment. Dorland notes

correctly, however, that under Louisiana law the state court could

have awarded general damages for other causes of action (i.e.,

negligence) pleaded by Creely besides fraud alone. S ee Kessler v.

Southmark Corp.

, 643 So. 2d 345, 351 (La. App. 2 d Cir. 1994).

Dorland also notes correctly that under Louisiana law, attorneys’

fees are recoverabl e for other causes of action besides fraud

alone. S ee, e.g., McHale v. Lake Charles Am. Press

, 390 So. 2d 556

(La. App. 3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied

, 452 U.S. 941 (1981)

(awarding attorneys’ fees in a libel case).

Only o ne of these additional causes of action for which

Dorland notes that attorneys’ fees are available, however, was

pleaded by Creely SS an action on open account. Creely concedes that

attorneys’ fees are available in an action on open account but

argues convincingly that the state court likely did not base its

award of attorneys’ fees of $4,505.15 on an open account claim of

$686.50, as such an award (600% of the damages claimed) would have

been excessive under the Louisiana reasonableness standards.

Hence, we do not find clear error in the district court’s finding7

that, of the various claims alleged by Creely, all three forms of

awards SS actual damages, general damages, and attorneys’ fees SS were

available and actually awarded for the fraud claim only. A finding

of fraud was therefore necessary to the default judgment, notwithstanding the fact that each of the various claims arose out of the

same set of operative facts.

AFFIRMED.