218 So. 3d 644
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- In August 2012 Calloway issued a $400,000 check delivered (via his grandfather) to Lobrano, who negotiated it; Calloway later demanded repayment and sued on November 23, 2015.
- Original petition pleaded unjust enrichment (La. C.C. art. 2298) and an “obligation to restore”; amended petition (filed around the hearing) alternatively alleged the transfer was a loan repayable in one year.
- Lobrano filed peremptory exceptions: no cause of action (arguing the claim was really money lent) and prescription (arguing a three‑year prescriptive period).
- Trial court sustained prescription and later sustained no cause of action; judgment of March 18, 2016 dismissed Calloway’s claims with prejudice. Calloway appealed.
- Appellate court reviewed the no‑cause exception de novo and prescription under manifest‑error for the factual findings; affirmed dismissal and assessed appeal costs to Calloway.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition states a cause of action for unjust enrichment | Calloway: funds were paid without legal justification; unjust enrichment elements alleged | Lobrano: remedy is an action for money lent, so unjust enrichment is unavailable | Court: no cause for unjust enrichment because another remedy (money lent) exists; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether claim is prescribed | Calloway: unjust enrichment is subject to 10‑year prescription; alternatively, any loan had a one‑year term so suit timely | Lobrano: if loan, action on money lent prescribes in 3 years from exigibility | Court: trial court found (factually) a loan exigible on Aug 15, 2012; three‑year prescription elapsed before suit; claims prescribed |
| Whether amended petition (money lent) altered posture | Calloway: amended petition pleaded loan in the alternative | Lobrano: original petition controlled; trial court properly treated amended filing as not curing prescription | Court: appellate review limited to March 18 judgment; even excluding amended petition, dismissal was correct; affirmance warranted |
| Whether appeal was frivolous | Lobrano: request for damages for frivolous appeal | Calloway: appeal asserted in good faith | Court: appeal not solely for delay nor frivolous; no damages awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (peremptory exception of no cause of action tests legal sufficiency of petition)
- Walters v. MedSouth Record Mgmt., LLC, 38 So.3d 243 (La. 2010) (existence of another remedy precludes unjust enrichment claim)
- Davis v. Elmer, 166 So.3d 1082 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2015) (elements required to recover for unjust enrichment)
- Fink v. Bryant, 801 So.2d 346 (La. 2001) (de novo review of exception raising no cause of action)
- Webb v. Webb, 835 So.2d 713 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (obligation not subject to a term is due immediately for prescription purposes)