Articles Posted in Civil Matter

Most of us probably owe money to someone.  Whether it be for our home, a vehicle, a credit card or even just to a friend.  A common legal tool called a garnishment is one way of using the civil court system to help recover money owed to you when someone is not paying their debts. Garnishment is explained in a recent case out of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.  

In this case, the original lawsuit was between Foundation Materials, Inc. (“FMI”) and Harmon Construction, L.L.C. (“Harmon”).  FMI obtained a money judgment against Harmon in the amount of $102,475.42.  At the time of this case, Harmon was working on an unrelated project with D.F. Chase, Inc. (“Chase”) as a subcontractor.  Chase allegedly owed $98.510.00 to Harmon for its work.  In order to collect upon the judgment against Harmon, FMI filed a garnishment naming Chase as garnishee and issued interrogatories, sets of questions, to Chase to determine the amount of money that Chase owed to Harmon.  Chase contended it only arguably owed $98,510.00 to Harmon and refused to turn over the money to FMI.

A garnishment is a legal process for obtaining property of a judgment debtor in the hands of a third party. Covington Pontiac-Buick-GMC Trucks, Inc. v. AAA Sewer & Water Fabrication & Serv., LLC, 873 So.2d 56 (La. Ct. App. 2004).  The test of a garnishee’s liability to the judgment creditor is whether the garnishee has in his hands the debtor’s property, funds, or credits for the recovery of which the debtor has a present subsisting cause of action. Houma Mortg. & Loan, Inc. v. Marshall, 664 So.2d 1199 (La. Ct. App. 1995). A garnishment judgment is entered and the garnishee required to pay the creditor if the garnishee admits to having property belonging to the debtor pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2415.

A person may seek help from the federal court system when that person feels that they have been cheated or wronged.  However, one needs to make sure that the federal court can actually help the situation. Personal jurisdiction is the ability of a court to exercise power over a person or a specific case.  Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear cases that revolve around the certain subject matter. Generally, lawsuits end up in the federal courts in one of two ways. The first occurs when the parties are from different states and the amount of the claim is over $75,000, regardless of the type of claim. The second occurs when the nature of the claim is specific to a federal statute or law. This is usually an attempt to get a federal court to enforce a right granted by federal law. A claim that would get in court under one of these two theories must be stated in the plaintiff’s complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal recently demonstrated the need to properly establish a federal claim.  In 2012, Landry Dixon sued Lakeside Toyota and the Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC).  Mr. Dixon believed that the Sales Manager of the dealership had lied to him by allowing him to assume that since he was leasing an automobile on behalf of the nonprofit organization of which he was the CEO, the lease would be tax-exempt, leading to a lower monthly payment. Mr. Dixon paid the lower amount stated on the lease agreement, which ultimately turned out to be almost thirty dollars below what he should have been paying as a nontax-exempt customer.  His lower payments added up, causing the Toyota Motor Credit Corporation to make collections and damage his credit rating.  Mr. Dixon brought this lawsuit in federal district court on a claim of common law fraud, which is a state law claim.

Since he did not claim anything about what states the parties were from nor did he bring a claim under federal law, the District Court dismissed it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Mr. Dixon attempted to file various motions to fight this dismissal.  He also made a separate lawsuit against the TMCC only, stating a claim under the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), which is a federal law that governs certain leases. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1667–1667f.  However, even this was not enough to establish a claim in federal court and the District Court dismissed the case once again.

Securing a loan with collateral might seem like a simple and everyday task, but even the smallest of mistakes in the process can carry severe consequences. Brent Kovach (Mr. Kovach), a shareholder in a few New Orleans French Quarter hotels, experienced the repercussions of a simple oversight when one paragraph in his collateral assignment nearly offset his entire life insurance policy. The following case delves into just how critical hiring an excellent attorney might be when interpreting seemingly straightforward contracts and when those contract disputes turn to a lawsuit.

Mr. Kovach was a shareholder of St. Peter Inc.’s Hotel and a member of A Creole House, LLC, which managed a French Quarter hotel. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, these hotels required refinancing and in order to secure the necessary loans, Mr. Kovach personally guaranteed them with his life insurance policy as collateral. Mr. Kovach and his wife, Ellen Kovach (Mrs. Kovach), acquired the one million dollar life insurance policy on Mr. Kovach in 1995 from New England Mutual Life Insurance Company.

After receiving the refinancing, the hotels failed to make loan payments and in May 2010 the bank requested a cash surrender of the value of the policy from New England Mutual Life Insurance Company. The life insurance company paid the value of the policy, $52,316.33, to the bank based upon the terms of the assignment and canceled Mr. Kovach’s life insurance plan without any notification to him.

In litigating claims, parties (particularly the attorneys) must exercise diligence. This means being timely when it comes to gathering evidence, complying with a court order, or filing a pleading, motion, appeal etc. In its Commentary to the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, the American Bar Association specifically warns that procrastination can seriously harm a client’s cause. Good attorneys heed this warning. Procrastination can and will often prompt the court to dismiss a litigant’s claims or objections. Illustrative is a recent case from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.

In 2011, Red Barn Motors, Inc. entered into a financing agreement with Dealer Services Corporation (“DSC”). Under the financing agreement, DSC would finance Red Barn’s purchase of vehicles at auction. But soon, things went sour. In March of 2013, Red Barn stopped making payments on its line of credit with DSC and DSC began seizing some of Red Barn’s assets. The next month, Red Barn delivered several vehicles to Louisiana’s First Choice Auto Auction, L.L.C. First choice was supposed to sell the vehicles, but instead, it delivered them to DSC. Red Barn eventually declared bankruptcy. At some point, DSC was absorbed by another company, NextGear Capital Inc.

Red Barn filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against NextGear and First Choice. Red Barn alleged that NextGear breached the financing agreement and benefited from unjust enrichment and that NextGear and First Choice committed conversion. According to Red Barn’s petition, sometimes six to eight weeks would pass before the auction house could transfer title to DSC, and DSC would refuse to pay the auction house until it received the title, though it would charge interest and fees starting from Red Barn’s initial purchase.