Court Opinion

ID: 9859324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 19:43:20.088825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:21:17.125306
License: Public Domain

BARHAM, Justice
(dissenting).
Plaintiffs’ petition alleges that their former counsel in the earlier suit by a motion obtained both an order to withdraw as counsel and an order to be allowed to withdraw all pleadings previously filed, and that the withdrawal of the previously filed pleadings was unauthorized by the plaintiffs and permitted a default judgment to be entered to their prejudice. They contend that a judgment under these circumstances may be annulled as one rendered against a defendant “ * * * against whom a valid judgment by default has not been taken * * ”. C.C.P. Art. 2002(2).
These allegations of plaintiffs may set out a cause of action against former counsel, but they do not establish the grounds for an action in nullity. Plaintiffs allege only that counsel erred in withdrawing pleadings, but do not allege that they lacked notice that the pleadings were withdrawn. They allege no fraud or ill practices on the part of anyone. If their allegations here are sufficient to annul a default judgment, then a default judgment can also be annulled upon the bare allegation that counsel, contrary to their obligations and specific authority, failed to file answer or other pleadings and thus allowed the default judgment to be entered. Code of Civil Procedure Article 2002 never contemplated that mistake of counsel, no matter how grievous (unless the error was perpetrated for the purpose of fraud, Article *8542004), should position a defendant as one against whom a default judgment has not been legally taken.
The majority has attempted to apply Code of Civil Procedure Article 2004, which provides that “A final judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices may be annulled”, although, as previously stated, plaintiffs’ petition contains no allegation of fraud and no allegation of any particular facts constituting fraud or ill practices. Notwithstanding that Code of Civil Procedure Article 856 requires an affirmative pleading of fraud or mistake and allegations with particularity of “ * * * the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake * ^ * ”, the majority is apparently allowing the plaintiffs to raise “ * * * in oral argument and brief * * * ” the affirmative issue of ‘ * * * their right to have annulled the adverse judgment confirmed against them some eight years after suit was filed, as provided by Code of Civil Procedure, • Article 2004 and related jurisprudence’ ”.
The attempt to use mistake of counsel for application of Article 2002 is totally untenable, and the attempt to apply Article 2004 because of fraud or ill practices is untenable for lack of particularity of allegations. The exception of no cause, of action was prop-erly sustained by the district court. .
I respectfully dissent.