217 So. 3d 586
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Winston owned a 2004 Buick titled in his name but allowed his daughter, Rochundra Garrison, to drive it; the car was towed to Ray’s Auto for repairs and remained there.
- Ray Waller (Ray’s Auto owner) told Garrison the car had been sold; chain of title shows transfers: Winston→Waller (Oct. 15, 2013) and Waller→Palmer (Nov. 23, 2013), each document bearing Duane Lucky Jr.’s name, notary number, and a signature above his typed name.
- Winston denied signing the bill of sale/title and sued Waller for conversion, obtaining judgment; plaintiffs then sued Lucky and State Farm (Lucky’s notary bond issuer), alleging Lucky notarized transfers without verifying identity.
- Lucky denied signing the notary signature (claimed forgery) and testified he routinely notarized dealer signatures without personal appearance; Waller initially swore he did not sign Lucky’s name, then later executed a contradictory affidavit admitting he had signed Lucky’s name.
- District court granted summary judgment for Lucky and State Farm and sustained State Farm’s exception of no cause of action as to Garrison, but denied State Farm’s motion to strike Waller’s first affidavit; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ claim that Lucky notarized forged sale documents | There is a genuine dispute of material fact whether Lucky signed/notarized the sale documents; Waller’s first affidavit and the documents themselves create an issue for trial | Lucky’s deposition denies he signed the notary signature; defendants argue no evidence Lucky actually notarized the transfers | Reversed in part: summary judgment improper — genuine issues of fact on authenticity of notary signature require factfinder credibility determinations |
| Whether Waller’s initial affidavit should have been stricken as unreliable | Plaintiffs rely on Waller’s first affidavit to show Lucky notarized the documents | Defendants moved to strike the first affidavit and relied on Waller’s second affidavit recanting the first | Court affirmed district court’s denial to strike: contradictory sworn affidavits create credibility issues inappropriate for summary judgment |
| Whether Garrison had a right of action | (Plaintiffs did not contest on appeal) | State Farm argued exception of no cause of action as to Garrison was proper | Exception granted below and plaintiffs do not contest; appellate court did not address and left that part affirmed |
| Standard for resolving notary-signature authenticity on summary judgment | Signature authenticity must be left to factfinder when evidence conflicts | Defendants urged dismissal on documentary and deposition evidence | Court held: signatures on notarized instruments are presumed valid; challengers bear burden to prove forgery; conflicting evidence precludes summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Argonaut Great Central Ins. Co. v. Hammett, 13 So.3d 1209 (discussing de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Whitaker v. City of Bossier City, 813 So.2d 1269 (summary judgment standards)
- Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 870 So.2d 1002 (summary judgment inappropriate for issues of intent/credibility)
- Benson v. State, 124 So.3d 544 (same: factual determinations of motive and credibility unsuited to summary judgment)
- Eymard v. Terrebonne, 560 So.2d 887 (authentic act is full proof; burden on challenger to prove forgery)
- Thompson v. Woods, 525 So.2d 174 (burden of proving a signature is forgery)
- Collins v. Collins, 629 So.2d 1274 (notary liable for negligence and deliberate misfeasance)