185 So. 3d 888
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Achary Electrical Contractors sued SimplexGrinnell LP on an open account claiming unpaid amounts for fire-alarm/security-system work and sought $166,943.18 (later affidavits/support reflected ~$107,796).
- Service was made on Simplex’s registered agent; Simplex did not timely answer and a preliminary default was entered.
- Achary submitted affidavits, invoices, an affidavit of indebtedness, certifications from counsel, and a proposed judgment to confirm the default.
- The trial court entered a default judgment for $107,795.80; Simplex was served with that judgment and appealed.
- On appeal Simplex argued the evidence supporting the default was incompetent/hearsay and that Achary failed to satisfy a contractual condition precedent.
- The appellate court vacated the default judgment because Achary failed to properly authenticate business records and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/admissibility of evidence to confirm default | Achary maintained submitted affidavits, invoices, and itemized statements established indebtedness and supported default confirmation | Simplex argued documents were hearsay and not properly authenticated under the business-records exception | Court vacated judgment: Achary failed to lay foundation under La. C.E. art. 803(6) and R.S. 13:3733; records should have been excluded and no prima facie case was proven |
| Existence of contractual condition precedent | Achary implicitly contended it satisfied contractual prerequisites for relief | Simplex asserted Achary did not meet a contractual condition precedent | Court did not reach merits after vacating judgment (issue pretermitted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, 9 So.3d 815 (La. 2009) (rules for reviewing sufficiency of proof to confirm default and applicability of evidentiary rules)
- Sessions & Fishman v. Liquid Air Corp., 616 So.2d 1254 (La. 1993) (plaintiff must prove existence and validity of claim in default confirmation)
- State v. Juniors, 915 So.2d 291 (La. 2005) (foundation requirements for business-records admissibility)
- Finch v. ATC/Vancom Mgmt. Servs. L.P., 33 So.3d 215 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (business-records authentication by a qualified witness)
- N & F Logistic, Inc. v. Cathay Inn Int’l, Inc., 170 So.3d 275 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2015) (default confirmation requires prima facie proof)