61 So. 3d 12
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lowe’s sued Lips for unpaid labor/materials on two contracts to renovate/elevate two Lafitte, LA homes.
- Lips requested a 30-day extension; no answer filed.
- Lowe’s sought and obtained preliminary default; later confirmed default judgment.
- Default judgment awarded Lowe’s $74,065.09 plus interest and costs.
- Lips appealed after denial of new trial.
- CourtAffirmed; costs assessed against Lips.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the default claim. | Lowe’s contract-based claim falls within state court jurisdiction. | Lips alleged federal questions due to FEMA funds. | No federal question; subject matter jurisdiction exists; issue without merit. |
| Whether notice for confirmation of default complied with Article 1702(A). | Delivery of notice via certified mail supported prima facie case. | Lips did not actually receive notice; defect undermines compliance. | Notice satisfied §1702(A); trial court did not err in confirming default. |
| Whether Lips is an indispensable party or contracting party; whether joinder was required. | Lowe’s contract was with Lips; Lips signed as individual. | Lips acted as agent for American Eagle; indispensable party should be joined. | Lips was the contracting party; no indispensable party error; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 9 So.3d 815 (La. 2009) (default-judgment proof requires prima facie case; manifest-error standard)
- Kem Search, Inc. v. Sheffield, 434 So.2d 1067 (La. 1983) (Article 2004 requires direct attack to annul judgment; fraud or ill practice found via proper action)
- Phillips v. Space Master Intern., Inc., 696 So.2d 64 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1997) (nullity action must be filed to challenge judgment for fraud/ill practice)
- State v. Daniel, 903 So.2d 644 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2005) (direct action for nullity must name and cite adverse party)
- White Haute, LLC v. Mayo, 38 So.3d 944 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2010) (default-judgment review limited to sufficiency of evidence; prima facie case required)
- Arias v. Stolthaven N.O., L.L.C., 9 So.3d 815 (La. 2009) (see above)