127 So. 3d 50
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Davis mortgaged a Harley-Davidson in May 2010 to secure a note; title recognized Davis as owner and Eaglemark as first lienholder.
- Eaglemark assigned the note to Harley-Davidson; Harley-Davidson filed executory process in January 2012 for seizure due to default.
- Writ of seizure and sale issued; June 2012 order corrected clerical error on VIN; motorcycle seized by Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Office and later returned due to the error.
- Between return and issuance of the corrected order, Fred’s Automotive sold the motorcycle to a third party with a permit to sell (April 2012).
- September 2012 Harley-Davidson filed a rule to produce collateral; Fred’s Automotive failed to appear at October 2012 hearing; trial court found Fred’s Automotive in contempt and ordered production of the motorcycle.
- Fred’s Automotive challenged the judgment via motions for new trial and for written reasons; court eventually denied new trial and ordered production; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand for written reasons is required. | Harley-Davidson argues Article 1917 remedy exists; record sufficient without remand. | Fred’s Automotive argues incomplete record; requests remand for written reasons. | Remand not required; record sufficient; not remanding for new trial. |
| Whether the contempt finding against Fred’s Automotive is proper. | Contempt due to failure to appear and produce collateral supports the ruling. | Contempt cannot be imposed on Fred Taylor individually; service issues; no contempt against Fred’s Automotive. | Court did not abuse discretion; Fred’s Automotive properly found in contempt. |
| Whether Harley-Davidson’s lien/priority issues were properly considered. | Harley-Davidson’s security interest outranks any repairman’s lien; lien validity challenge not timely on appeal. | Argues about validity of lien and perfection; challenge raised on appeal is improper. | Security interest validity not properly challengeable on appeal; lien priority upheld as context for proceedings. |
| Whether use of a summary proceeding was proper and whether Fred’s Automotive could contest via intervention. | Rule to produce collateral is an incidental matter in executory proceedings; summary procedure appropriate. | Summary proceeding improper; could have intervened under Article 1091; objected via dilatory exceptions. | Summary proceeding proper; Fred’s Automotive could have intervened; status of proceeding affirmed |
| Whether Fred’s Automotive should have intervened to assert rights in the seized property. | Intervention not properly pursued; Harley-Davidson outranks third-party claims. | Fred’s Automotive was aware of seizure and should have intervened to protect its interests. | Intervention was available; failure to intervene acknowledged; nonetheless contempt affirmed and proceeds upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La. 2011) (remand or writ remedy for failure to provide written reasons for judgment)
- Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 980 So.2d 654 (La. 2008) (appeals review judgments, not written reasons for judgment)
- Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm'n v. Olivier, 860 So.2d 22 (La. 2003) (appeals review judgments, not reasons for judgment)
- State in the Interest of Mason, 356 So.2d 530 (La. App. 1 Cir.1977) (written reasons for judgment are explication, do not alter final judgment)
- Pettus v. Atchafalaya Wildlife Protective Soc., 351 So.2d 790 (La. App. 1 Cir.1977) (corporate contempt and agency responsibility)
- La.Code Civ.P. art. 1091, not a case citation (La. 2013) (intervention by third party in pending action)
- In re Boothe, 110 So.3d 1002 (La. 2013) (suspension of judge prevented complying with remand order)
- McDonald v. McDonald, 10 So.3d 780 (La. App. 3 Cir.2009) (trial court discretion in contempt matters)