Burgh Investments, Inc. v. Burk
2:24-cv-02339
| E.D. La. | Jul 23, 2025Background
- Burgh Investments, Inc. obtained summary judgment against William Richard Burk, III ("Biff") for $935,752.05 plus interest, stemming from Biff’s default on a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) agreement.
- Biff and Jacquelyn Burk ("Jackie"), his ex-wife, were both solidary obligors under the HELOC, but had a community property settlement and consent judgment upon their 2016 divorce, under which Jackie agreed to be responsible for half of the debt.
- The Court also granted Biff’s motion for partial summary judgment against Jackie, ordering her to contribute half of any amount Biff owes to Burgh under the community agreement.
- Biff filed a Rule 59(e) motion seeking to have the Court amend the judgment so that both he and Jackie would owe half of the total amount directly to Burgh, rather than Biff being solely liable with a right to seek reimbursement from Jackie.
- Burgh opposed, asserting that Biff and Jackie remain solidary obligors under Louisiana law and that Biff's proposed amendment would unlawfully divide the solidary obligation.
- The Court denied Biff’s motion, finding no manifest error of law or fact and confirming that Louisiana law prohibits the division of solidary obligations at the request of a defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment should be amended so Biff and Jackie each owe half of the debt directly to Burgh | Burgh: Only liable to full amount against one solidary obligor; judgment as written is correct | Biff: Judgment should be amended so each owes half directly, per their settlement agreement | The judgment stands; under LA law, Burgh can pursue either obligor for the full amount |
| Effect of the community property settlement agreement on solidary liability | Burgh: Settlement agreement doesn't affect Burgh’s right as creditor | Biff: Settlement "contracts otherwise," so only half liability is owed | Agreement does not reduce solidary liability to creditor |
| Timeliness and appropriateness of arguments raised under Rule 59(e) | Burgh: Argument untimely; should have been raised before judgment | Biff: Seeks clarification, consistent with previous motion | Court rejects amendment; no manifest error or new evidence |
| Whether amendment would correct a manifest error of law or fact under Rule 59(e) | Burgh: No error in law or fact in judgment | Biff: Denial would cause manifest injustice | No manifest error; amendment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Envirogreen Landscape Professionals, Inc., 721 F. App’x 322 (5th Cir. 2017) (outlines when a Rule 59(e) motion is appropriate)
- Jennings v. Towers Watson, 11 F.4th 335 (5th Cir. 2021) (elaborates standard for Rule 59(e) motions)
- Koerner v. CMR Construction & Roofing, L.L.C., 910 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2018) (reconsideration after entry of judgment is extraordinary and rare)
- P H I, Inc. v. Apical Indus., Inc., 946 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (purpose of solidary liability is to protect the creditor)