165 So. 3d 117
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Citadel Builders sued Dirt Worx for breach of a subcontract for demolition, earthwork, and storm drainage, seeking about $1.3 million in damages.
- Dirt Worx was served but did not timely file a formal answer; instead a letter from its registered agent (not an attorney) was filed with the clerk stating: “Dirt Worx of Louisiana, LLC denies all claims mentioned.”
- Citadel Builders obtained a preliminary default, moved to strike Dirt Worx’s filed letter as an improper/noncompliant answer and as having been filed by a non‑lawyer, and then moved to confirm final default judgment.
- The trial court struck the letter as an answer (without a hearing) and, on the same day Citadel moved, confirmed final default judgment for $1,256,205.39 plus interest.
- Dirt Worx obtained counsel, moved for a new trial arguing the answer was stricken without a hearing and that it did not receive required notice of intent to confirm default; the motion was denied and Dirt Worx appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letter filed by Dirt Worx constituted an "answer" | The letter was not a compliant answer and should be stricken; it was filed by a non‑lawyer so it cannot constitute a proper appearance. | The letter substantively denied the petition and therefore was an appearance/answer preventing default confirmation without notice. | The letter, despite technical defects, substantively qualified as an answer; but it was filed by a non‑attorney representing an LLC, so striking it was proper; failure to hold a hearing before striking was harmless error. |
| Whether the trial court erred by striking the answer without a hearing | Striking was proper because the filing was not a proper answer and was by a non‑lawyer; no prejudice. | Striking without a contradictory hearing violated La. C.C.P. art. 964 and was reversible error. | The court erred procedurally by not holding a hearing before striking, but the error was harmless because the filing was by an unlicensed person on behalf of an LLC and thus properly stricken. |
| Whether Citadel complied with the notice requirement before confirming default (La. C.C.P. art. 1702) | Citadel sent a certified/overnight letter notifying Dirt Worx of its intent to file to confirm default and that the clerked letter was not a valid answer. | Dirt Worx argued the filed letter constituted an appearance and that Citadel failed to give the required 7‑day notice before confirmation. | The court found Citadel provided sufficient notice (sent 16 days before motion), satisfying article 1702. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v. Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System, 456 So.2d 594 (La. 1984) (pleadings construed to afford litigants their day in court and to do substantial justice)
- Brown v. American Messenger Services, Inc., 498 S.E.2d 384 (N.C. App. 1998) (a letter may qualify as an answer if it substantively responds to the complaint)
- Barrell v. Gibson, 266 S.E.2d 308 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980) (short letter denying indebtedness can constitute a general denial/answer)
- First Bank & Trust v. Proctor’s Cove II, LLC, 150 So.3d 418 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (LLC may not be represented by non‑lawyer; pleadings filed by unlicensed person may be struck)
- Hicks v. Steve R. Reich, Inc., 873 So.2d 849 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2004) (pleadings establishing an appearance must be treated as such for notice requirements under art. 1702)
- Ackel v. Ackel, 905 So.2d 1137 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2005) (a confirmation entered after an answer is filed is an absolute nullity)