JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Boohaker
168 So. 3d 421
| La. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Chase filed a June 1, 2011 suit against the Boohakers to enforce a promissory note and recognize a mortgage securing it.
- Chase alleged a transfer chain beginning with Premier Mortgage to Premier Bank, Banc One, Homeside Lending, Washington Mutual, and finally Chase, with Chase in possession of the original note.
- Boohakers propounded discovery in July 2012 seeking documents supporting Chase’s ownership; Chase failed to respond timely and production dates were set.
- A July 16, 2013 discovery deadline passed without production; Chase later produced duplicate copies; sanctions were sought and granted on September 16, 2013, barring use of late-produced documents and awarding fees.
- Boohakers then obtained peremptory exceptions of no right of action and prescription; the trial court dismissed the suit by judgment on December 3, 2013; Chase appeals challenging the sanctions and the exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chase has a right to enforce the note. | Chase possessed the original note and alleged a valid transfer chain. | Boohakers argued missing links in the transfer chain negate Chase’s enforceability. | Chase has a right to enforce; the trial court erred in granting no right of action. |
| Whether the action is prescribed. | Suit interrupted prescription by filing within five years of acceleration. | No interruption since Chase allegedly was not the proper party to enforce. | Timely; the prescription exception was improper. |
| Whether the sanctions prohibiting use of certain evidence were proper. | Sanctions improperly extended to non-responsive or non-produced items beyond the order. | Sanctions targeted documents or evidence responsive to discovery not produced by the deadline. | Sanction language was limited to responsive documents/evidence not produced by August 13, 2013; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Niemann v. Crosby Development Company, L.L.C., 92 So.3d 1039 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2012) (burden on no-right-of-action; pleadings treated as true unless contradicted)
- Horrell v. Horrell, 808 So.2d 363 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2000) (evidence required to contest petition allegations in no-right-of-action)
- OXY USA Inc. v. Quintana Production Company, 79 So.3d 366 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2011) (burden of proof and de novo review on no-right-of-action)