The actions of counsel in Russell, who actually participated in litigation proceedings, stand in stark contrast to the sole denial letter written by Mr. Cutrera in this case. Finally, Ford cites Firmature v. Tommasi 533 So.2d 1326 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988), for the proposition that counsel for ASI's failure to inform the court that she had received Mr. Cutrera's denial letter constituted an ill practice. In Firmature, the plaintiff sued Tommasi for injuries resulting from a tort, and Tommasi was legally served.
"Fraud or ill practice" is language sufficiently broad to encompass all situations wherein a judgment is rendered through some improper practice or procedure which operates, even innocently, to deprive the party cast in judgment of some legal right, and where the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable. Fir-mature v. Tommasi, 533 So.2d 1326 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1988). Howard's reliance on Thomas is misplaced.
By way of further explanation of that rule, the court quoted from Raphiel v. Louisiana Ry. Nav. Co., 155 La. 590, 99 So. 459 (1924): "No court may legally set aside and avoid a judgment by default, confirmed in strict conformity with all the requirements of law, in order to afford defendant an opportunity to offer a defense solely on the alleged ground that such action would be in furtherance of justice." In Firmature v. Tommasi, 533 So.2d 1326 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1988) we held that a judgment by default may not be set aside for fraud or ill practice when there was no improper practice or procedure committed by plaintiff's counsel. The defendant was not entitled to relief solely on the basis of the fact that his attorney failed to filed an answer.
"Fraud or ill practice" is language sufficiently broad to encompass all situations wherein a judgment is rendered through some improper practice or procedure which operates, even innocently, to deprive the party cast in judgment of some legal right, and where the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable. Firmature v. Tommasi, 533 So.2d 1326 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1988). In the present case the witnesses gave the trial court information which was incorrect, i.e., the identity of the lessor.