194 So. 3d 47
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Sonnier sued the Gordons on a $200,000 promissory note (signed April 19, 2011), alleging nonpayment and claiming accrued interest and fees.
- The Gordons, pro se at the summary‑judgment hearing, admitted signing the note but submitted affidavits asserting they never received the $200,000 (want of consideration / lack of funding).
- Sonnier produced the note, demand letters, and an affidavit; he argued production + admitted signatures established entitlement to judgment and that failure of consideration is an affirmative defense the Gordons did not plead.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Sonnier (including interest and attorney fees), reasoning production of the note and signature admission sufficed and that the Gordons had not properly pleaded failure of consideration.
- After obtaining counsel the Gordons moved for a new trial, submitted additional affidavits describing an alleged business arrangement and that Sonnier placed the funds into companies he controlled rather than paying the Gordons.
- The trial court denied the new‑trial motion; the appellate court reversed, holding the Gordons’ affidavits raised a genuine issue of material fact on want of consideration and that Sonnier then bore the burden to prove consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Sonnier's Argument | Gordons' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether production of the note and admission of signatures alone entitle Sonnier to summary judgment | Production of the instrument + admitted signatures establish entitlement to enforce the note | The Gordons contended their affidavits rebut the presumption of consideration and create a factual dispute | Reversed: production + signatures do not automatically entitle Sonnier where maker raises doubt about consideration; factual dispute exists |
| Whether want/failure of consideration must be pleaded as an affirmative defense to be considered | Sonnier: failure of consideration is affirmative and was not pleaded, so cannot defeat summary judgment | Gordons: want of consideration (no money received) rebuts presumption and may be shown by affidavit without special plea | Held for Gordons: want of consideration may be shown to rebut presumption without an affirmative special plea; credibility is for trial |
| Whether the trial court could make credibility determinations at summary judgment (discount the Gordons’ affidavits as from a convicted felon) | Sonnier argued the Gordons’ affidavits lacked weight due to Kenneth’s criminal record | Gordons relied on affidavits and additional facts to show funds were not paid to them | Held: credibility cannot be resolved on summary judgment; court must assume affidavits credible for purposes of the motion |
| Whether denial of the new‑trial motion was an abuse of discretion | Sonnier: no abuse — summary judgment was proper | Gordons: denial abused discretion because material facts existed and they should have had trial to present witnesses | Held: trial court abused discretion in denying new trial because genuine fact issue existed on consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary judgment standards and burden shifting explained)
- American Bank v. Saxena, 553 So.2d 836 (La. 1989) (note enforcement by production of instrument when maker presents no defense)
- Lilly Lyd, L.L.C. v. Graham, 167 So.3d 829 (La. App. 6th Cir. 2014) (defendant’s affidavit can rebut presumption of consideration)
- Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 755 So.2d 226 (La. 2000) (trial court cannot resolve credibility on summary judgment)
- Smith v. Louisiana Bank & Trust Co., 272 So.2d 678 (La. 1973) (distinguishing failure of consideration and want of consideration)