165 So. 3d 1204
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Rain and Hail seeks unpaid MPCI premiums under Policy No. MP-0696368, with a promissory note incorporated into the policy; the note purportedly covers October 1, 2011–November 1, 2012 and bears Davis’s signature; the petition was filed January 16, 2013 and amended March 7, 2013.
- Davis, pro se, argued there was no signed promissory note attached to evidence the obligation and responded February 8, 2013.
- A June 3, 2013 motion for summary judgment was supported by exhibits but lacked Davis’s signed documents; Davis argued lack of proper evidence.
- At an August 8, 2013 hearing the court continued the matter to October 3, 2013, advised Davis to submit admissible evidence, and left the record open for supplementary filings.
- Between September and October 2013 Rain and Hail supplemented with multiple insurance documents, including signature pages; the October 3, 2013 hearing led to a summary judgment granting Rain and Hail the requested amounts.
- The final judgment awarded Rain and Hail $4,503 principal, $728 accrued contractual interest, legal interest, $750 in attorney fees, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuance after the summary judgment hearing was abused | Rain and Hail argues continuance was proper to allow timely evidence | Davis contends continuance violated procedural rules and prejudiced him | No abuse; court acted within discretion |
| Whether the court properly denied Davis's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment | Rain and Hail asserts Davis's motion lacked supporting evidence | Davis argues no signed note and insufficiency of evidence | Court denied Davis's motion and granted Rain and Hail’s summary judgment |
| Whether Rain and Hail established entitlement to summary judgment with admissible evidence of Davis’s signature | Plaintiff shows multiple documents and a signature page linking to the note | Davis asserts absence of signed promissory note | Yes; evidentiary burden met; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson v. Davidson, 799 So.2d 652 (La.App.2d Cir.2001) (reiteration of motion for summary judgment; can re-urge a denied motion)
- Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, Inc., 92 So.3d 560 (La.App.2d Cir.2012) (denial of a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory; reconsideration allowed)
- Politz v. Politz, 149 So.3d 805 (La.App.2d Cir.2014) (continuance factors and fairness in granting continuances)
- English v. English, 105 So.3d 994 (La.App.2d Cir.2012) (continuance considerations and fair administration of justice)
- State ex rel. Div. of Admin., Office of Risk Management v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Louisiana, 56 So.3d 1236 (La.App.1st Cir.2011) (summary judgment standards and admissible evidence)