73 So. 3d 967
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Strong, a Texas resident, executed four markers totaling $72,000 at Eldorado in Louisiana; markers were later dishonored NSF and returned.
- Eldorado sought payment under La. R.S. 9:2782 and asserted damages and fees; Strong challenged enforceability under Texas law and Louisiana Arts 2983/2984.
- Strong filed a declaratory judgment action; Eldorado filed reconventional demand for the marker amount plus penalties, fees, and costs.
- Trial court granted summary judgment enforcing the markers and awarding damages; Strong appeals.
- Court conducts de novo review and analyzes conflict-of-laws, enforceability, negotiability, presentment, and compliance with 9:2782; evidence presented by both sides is weighed.
- The court ultimately affirms the trial court’s summary judgment and awards Eldorado appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict of laws—Louisiana or Texas law governs enforcement | Strong argues Texas law applies due to Texas contacts and policy against gambling debts | Eldorado argues Louisiana law applies under articles 3515/3537 balancing factors in favor of Louisiana | Louisiana law applied; conflicts analysis favored Louisiana policy. |
| Enforceability under La. C.C. Arts. 2983-2984 | Markers are gambling debts not enforceable under 2983/2984 | Markers are not gambling debts; gaming is legal and collectible under regulatory regime | Markers enforceable under Arts. 2983-2984. |
| Markers as negotiable instruments under La. R.S. 9:2782 | Markers do not satisfy negotiability or 9:2782 requirements | Markers are negotiable instruments payable on demand to bearer or to order | Markers satisfy negotiability; 9:2782 damages/fees may apply. |
| Presentment before payment due under 9:2782 | Eldorado presented markers before due date | Markers payable on demand; no extension agreed; presentment proper | Presentment within rights; no extension agreement shown. |
| Compliance with La. R.S. 9:2782 requirements | Demand to address on instrument and proper receipt not proven | Demand letters sent to addresses on file; receipt shown; statutory requirements met | Strict compliance shown; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- TeleRecovery of Louisiana, Inc. v. Major, 734 So.2d 947 (La.App.1st Cir.1999) (enforceability of markers; gambling debt not required to be unenforceable)
- Players Lake Charles, LLC v. Tribble, 779 So.2d 1058 (La.App.3d Cir.2001) (conflict-of-laws approach in enforcement of checks/markers)
- Gaulon v. TeleRecovery of Louisiana, 751 So.2d 224 (La.App.5th Cir.1999) (markers not barred as gambling debts; internal gaming statutes permit enforcement)
- TeleRecovery of Louisiana, Inc. v. Rayborn, 814 So.2d 688 (La.App.1st Cir.2002) (NSF demand and address sufficiency under 9:2782)
- Lauer v. Catalanotto, 522 So.2d 656 (La.App.5th Cir.1988) (art. 2983 prohibition interpreted with gaming legality)