92 So. 3d 1072
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- WHM leased a Caterpillar 320CL from Hat’s Equipment on Feb 2, 2009 at $6,955/month; WHM paid first three months but ceased payments thereafter.
- The equipment was returned July 19, 2009 with alleged damage; Hat’s Equipment demanded $20,865 for past-due rent and $25,778.19 for damages on May 18, 2010, plus attorney’s fees if unpaid.
- Hat’s Equipment filed suit on June 14, 2010; initial petition misnamed White Horse Maintenance, Inc.; WHM later substituted as defendant via amended petition on Mar 23, 2011.
- WHM answered with general denial and raised prescription as to damages; Hat’s Equipment sought summary judgment supported by contract, account statement, damage notices, repair invoices, and a demand letter.
- Hat’s Equipment did not attach affidavits or deposition testimony; WHM opposed, arguing prescription and factual disputes over additional charges after completion of work.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hat’s Equipment for rent, damages, and fees; WHM appeals, contending error in finding no genuine issue of material fact; appellate court reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hat’s established a prima facie open account. | Hat’s proves the account via contract, WHM’s statement, damage invoices, and a proper demand. | Hat’s failed to prove records kept in the course of business and provided no affidavits; thus no prima facie case. | Hat’s failed to prove prima facie open account; genuine issues remain. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given potential prescription and factual disputes over damages. | Record supports debt and damages; no genuine issue. | Prescription and record-keeping issues preclude summary judgment; facts unresolved. | Summary judgment improper; case remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobs Chiropractic Clinic v. Holloway, 589 So.2d 31 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1991) (prima facie case for open account requires business records and accuracy evidence)
- Nail v. Germania Plantation, Inc., 693 So.2d 1294 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1997) (records must be kept in the course of business and proven accurate)
- St. Tammany Parish Hospital v. Burris, 804 So.2d 960 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2001) (material facts; summary judgment requires no genuine issue)
- Richard v. Hall, 874 So.2d 131 (La.2004) (materiality depends on applicable substantive law)
- Richardson v. Geico Indemnity Co., 48 So.3d 307 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2010) (record must support prima facie case; burden shift upon proof)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La.2004) (summary judgment standard; resolve doubts in nonmoving party’s favor)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La.2008) (appellate review of summary judgments de novo)
- Allen v. State ex rel. Ernest N. Morial-New Orleans Exhibition Hall Authority, 842 So.2d 373 (La.2003) (summary judgment standards and burden)