Double NRJ Trucking, Inc. v. Johnson, 247 So. 3d 1125

Plaintiffs Double NRJ Trucking, Inc. and Ramesh Ramsarup sued Michael G. Johnson to cancel a "lease to own" and recover a 2006 truck, claiming Johnson defaulted on weekly payments. The district court held a bench trial and denied the petition with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed.
A written agreement (purported authentic act) and a payment agreement were introduced; both referenced 192 weekly payments and weekly amounts, but the written notarized agreement omitted one party's signature and did not mention Double NRJ.
Johnson and his wife testified they understood the deal was a sale for $70,000, payable in 92 weekly payments at 20% annual interest (weekly payment $829.08 principal/interest plus insurance), and produced a log showing 105 payments of $829.08 through April 10, 2017.
Ramsarup testified the contract required 192 weekly payments; he also testified he would sign title over upon completion of payments. Plaintiffs cancelled the truck’s plate after a missed payment and sought cancellation of the lease and return of the vehicle.
The district court found factual disputes, expressed suspicions of fraud, concluded the documents mistakenly reflected 192 weeks, and denied relief. On appeal the court affirmed denial but sustained a peremptory exception dismissing Double NRJ for lack of standing because it was not a party to the contract.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/enforceability of the notarized agreement	Agreement is authentic and governs rights; plaintiffs entitled to return of vehicle for default	Agreement is the parties' contract; defendant performed or lacked obligation to return vehicle	The notarized document was void for defect of form (missing a signatory) and thus not an authentic act; it also was not an act under private signature, so parties’ rights evaluated from other evidence
Who has standing/right of action	Double NRJ asserted rights under the contract	Johnson argued Double NRJ was not a party	Double NRJ Trucking, Inc. has no right of action and was dismissed with prejudice (peremptory exception sustained)
Proper characterization: sale vs. lease-to-own	Plaintiffs treated arrangement as a lease to own and sought cancellation/return	Johnson argued it was a sale and he had paid off his obligations	Court (de novo) found the transaction was a sale (ownership transferrable upon completion of payments)
Contract terms (price, number payments, interest)	Plaintiffs say 192 payments per written docs; seek enforcement	Johnson says 92 payments at 20% interest and has made >92 payments; Ramsarup claims 192 payments	On de novo review court found preponderance supports $70,000 price, $829.08 weekly, 92 payments, 20% annual interest; Johnson satisfied obligations, so cancellation denied

Eschete v. Eschete, 142 So.3d 985 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (material deviation from required form defeats authenticity of purported authentic act)
Hardin v. Williams, 468 So.2d 1302 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985) (same principle regarding authentic acts)
Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (appellate de novo review required where legal error taints trial court fact-finding)
Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La. 2011) (reasons for judgment are not part of the judgment but may be reviewed for insight)
Blanchard v. Rental Serv. Corp., U.S.A., 920 So.2d 911 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2006) (fraud is an affirmative defense that must be specially pled)
Bamma Leasing Co. v. Sec'y of Dep't of Revenue & Taxation, 646 So.2d 917 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1994) (distinguishing sale from lease with option; certain lease-to-own arrangements are sales)