Court Opinion

ID: 9377737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 17:04:26.583772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:16.061290
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                         COURT OF APPEAL

                           FIRST CIRCUIT

                           NO. 2022 CA 0166

                     GULFCO OF LOUISIANA, LLC
                    D/ B/ A TOWER LOAN OF CUT OFF

                               VERSUS

        MARK A. PLAISANCE, A/K/A MARK PLAISANCE

                                     Judgment Rendered:
                                                          MAR 0 8 2023

   PEALED FROM THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
              IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF LAFOURCHE
                          STATE OF LOUISIANA
                        DOCKET NUMBER 141043

         HONORABLE F. HUGH LAROSE, JUDGE PRESIDING

Jessica L. Greber                    Attorney for Plaintiff A
                                                            - ppellant
Shreveport, Louisiana                Gulfco of Louisiana, LLC
                                     d/ b/ a Tower Loan of Cut Off

Mark A. Plaisance                    Pro Se
Raceland, Louisiana

      BEFORE:       McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, CHUTZ, PENZATO,
                          AND GREENE, JJ.
GREENE, J.

        This is an appeal from a judgment after a hearing on a confirmation of a

default regarding a check loan.' For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

                         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        On July 13, 2020, Gulfco of Louisiana, LLC d/ b/ a Tower Loan of Cut Off

 Gulfco),    filed suit against Mark A. Plaisance, asserting that it was the holder of an

instrument executed by Mr. Plaisance, that Mr. Plaisance was in arrears and in

default, and that it was exercising its option as the holder of the instrument to declare

all sums under the note due and payable. The loan resulted from a " check loan" for

 4, 001. 81 mailed to Mr. Plaisance as a solicitation.               Mr. Plaisance allegedly cashed

the check at JP Morgan Chase Bank to borrow the money.

        Gulfco maintained that Mr. Plaisance owed the unpaid balance on the loan,

 4, 368. 52, together with interest at the rate of 31. 13 percent per annum for one year

beginning June 19, 2020, and thereafter at the rate of 18 percent per annum, until

paid in full, as well as $     42. 20 in late charges, all costs of collection, including court

costs, and reasonable attorney' s fees. Gulfco attached a copy of the check allegedly

signed by Mr. Plaisance and processed by his bank, along with a lost note affidavit

from Gulfco' s branch manager, Lauren Brunet, attesting that the documents were

true and correct copies.        Mr. Plaisance did not file an answer.

        Thereafter, on September 4, 2020,                 Gulfco filed a motion for preliminary

default, noting that Mr. Plaisance had not filed an answer within the legal time

delays.    A preliminary default was entered against Mr. Plaisance by the trial court

on September 22, 2020.          Subsequently, Gulfco filed a motion for confirmation of the

preliminary default, which was denied by the trial court.                     Thereafter, Gulfco filed

I Acts 2021, No. 174, § 5 and § 6 repealed La. C. C. P. art. 1701 and amended and reenacted arts. 1702,
1702. 1, 1703, and 1704 relative to default judgments. These changes apply to default judgments rendered
on or after January 1, 2022. Acts 2021, No. 174 § 7. " Thus, the denial of a confirmation of default judgment
at issue in this case, rendered on October 29, 2021, is governed by the law in effect prior to this amendment.

                                                      2
another motion for confirmation of the default, and the matter was set for a hearing

on October 28, 2021.

          Mr. Plaisance did not appear at the hearing on October 28, 2021.                               Gulfco

introduced copies of the check loan and promissory note allegedly signed by Mr.

Plaisance into evidence.          Ms. Brunet testified at the hearing that the check loan was

cashed by Mr. Plaisance and that Gulfco received a copy of the processed check loan

from Mr. Plaisance' s bank. Ms. Brunet also testified that the check was attached to

the promissory note and the disclosure statement, and that the copies were kept by

Gulfco in its business records.

          At the close of the hearing on the confirmation of default, the trial court

rendered judgment in favor of Mr. Plaisance, and against Gulfco, denying all relief

prayed for by Gulfco. The judgment was signed on October 29, 2021.                             The judgment

stated in pertinent part:

                 THIS CAUSE,            having come on for confirmation of [default]
        judgment after all legal delays having elapsed, and petitioner having
          presented the suit file, minutes of the case, evidence of the claim and
          proper certifications, the case was taken up, and the Court considering
          the law and evidence to be in favor thereof:

                 IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be
        judgment herein in favor of defendant, [ Mr. Plaisance],                    and against said

          petitioner, GULFCO ...          denying all relief prayed for.

Gulfco appealed that judgment.'

                                              DISCUSSION

          As an appellate court,           we have the duty to examine our subject matter

jurisdiction and to determine sua sponte whether such subject matter jurisdiction

exists,    even when the issue is not raised by the litigants.                        Bond v, Louisiana

Z In its assignments of error, Gulfco maintains that the trial court erred in finding that it failed to satisfy the
requirements for enforcement of negotiable instruments pursuant to La. R. S. 10: 3- 104, that it erred in not
finding that Gulfco was a holder of the instrument, that it erred in finding that Gulfco was attempting to
circumvent the requirements for negotiable instruments, and that it erred in failing to accept the
reproduction of the instrument as prima facie proof of its contents pursuant to La. R.S. 13: 3733. 1( 0).
Because we find that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we pretermit discussion of Gulfco' s
assignments of error.

                                                        3
Purchase Equestrian Estates, LLC, 2019- 0957 (           La. App.     1 Cir. 2121120), 299

So. 3d 120, 124; Marrero v. I. Manheim Auctions, Inc., 2019- 0365 ( La. App. 1

Cir. 11/ 19/ 19),   291 So.3d 236, 238; Advanced Leveling &         Concrete Solutions v.

Lathan Company, Inc., 2017- 1250 ( La. App.           1 Cir. 12120118), 268 So. 3d 1044,

1046 ( en    Banc).     This court' s appellate jurisdiction only extends to "            final

judgments."    Rose v. Twin River Development, LLC, 2017- 0319 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

11/ 1/ 17), 233 So. 3d 679, 683; see also La. C.C. P. art. 2083( A).

       A valid judgment must be precise, definite,            and   certain.    Laird v. St.

Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002- 0045 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 20/ 02),               836 So.2d

364, 365.    Moreover, a final appealable judgment must contain decretal language

and must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against

whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied.          La. C. C. P. art.

1918; DeVance v. Tucker, 2018- 1440 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 31/ 19),              278 So. 3d 380,

382.   These determinations should be evident from the language of the judgment

without reference to other documents in the record.             Advanced Leveling &

Concrete Solutions, 268 So. 3d at 1046.

       Only final judgments and interlocutory judgments expressly provided by law

are appealable. La. C. C.P. art. 2083. A judgment that determines the merits in whole

or in part is a final judgment.     La. C. C. P. art. 1841.    A judgment that denies a

confirmation of a preliminary default does not determine the merits and is therefore,

interlocutory. Jackson v. Usey, 20-402 ( La. App. 5 Cir. 2/ 10/ 21), 315 So. 3d 377,

378; see also Gorman v. Miller, 2012- 0412 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 13/ 13),           136 So. 3d

834, 839, writ denied, 2013- 2909 ( La. 3/ 21/ 14),   135 So. 3d 620 ( treating the denial

of a request to confirm a preliminary default as an interlocutory judgment).

       The record on appeal reveals that the only relief that Gulfco prayed to be heard

on the hearing date was for a confirmation of a default judgment.              The trial court

denied this request.      The judgment on appeal does not grant any relief to Mr.

                                            4
Plaisance and does not dismiss Gulfco' s suit. It merely denies the motion for default

judgment and is, therefore, an interlocutory judgment.                    See Gorman, 136 So. 3d at

389; see also Allen v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,

2018- 1676 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 10/ 19),          2019 WL 2416957 ( unpublished) ( dismissing

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction upon concluding that the denial of a motion for

preliminary default is an interlocutory ruling).                Furthermore, the October 29, 2021

ruling is not an interlocutory judgment appealable by law.                         See La. C. C. P.    art.

2083( C).

        Accordingly, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over this matter, and we

dismiss the appeal. 3 Costs of this appeal are assessed against the appellant, Gulfco

of Louisiana, LLC d/ b/ a Tower Loan of Cut Off.

        APPEAL DISMISSED.

3
 Additionally, Gulfco' s motion and order for appeal was filed more than thirty days from the mailing of
notice of signing of the judgment denying the motion for confirmation of default judgment; thus, this Court
may not exercise supervisory jurisdiction to consider the merits of Gulfco' s arguments. Tower Credit Inc.
v. Bradley, 2015- 1164 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 15/ 16),   194 5o. 3d 62, 65. See also Uniform Rules — Courts of
Appeal, Rule 4- 3.

                                                        5
GULFCO OF LOUISIANA, LLC                                  STATE OF LOUISIANA
D/ B/ A TOWER LOAN OF CUT OFF
                                                          COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
                                                          FIRST CIRCUIT
MARK A. PLAISANCE, A/ K/A
MARK PLAISANCE                                            NO. 2022 CA 0166

HOLDRIDGE, J.,        agrees.

       I agree with the excellent opinion by Judge Greene.          I will write further to

add that like a denial of a summary judgment, a denial of a default judgment is

never appealable since it will always be an interlocutory judgment.            See Allen v.

Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2018- 1676 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

6110119),    2019 WL 2416957, * 2 (       unpublished).   Further, the trial court cannot

dismiss an action at the default judgment stage of the proceedings. See Gorman v.

Miller,     2012- 0412 ( La.   App.   1   Cir.   11113113),   136   So. 3d   834,   839, writ

denied, 2013- 2909 ( La. 3121/ 14), 135 So. 3d 620 ("[ I] f the plaintiff fails to present

sufficient evidence to confirm a preliminary default judgment ... the trial court is

effectively prevented from dismissing the plaintiff' s suit on its own motion. ...

T] he trial court' s authority is limited to a denial of the request to confirm the

preliminary default judgment.")