From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oak Cliff Bank and Trust Co. v. Kittle

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit
Mar 12, 1975
309 So. 2d 742 (La. Ct. App. 1975)

Opinion

No. 6694.

March 12, 1975.

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE OLIVER P. CARRIERE, J.

Greenberg Dallam, Gretna (Roger I. Dallam, Gretna and Alan J. Boudreaux), New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Shushan, Meyer, Jackson, McPherson Herzog, New Orleans (John A. Stassi, II, and Robert P. Chatelain), New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before LEMMON, SCHOTT and BEER, JJ.


Plaintiff appeals from a dismissal of its suit filed pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. Arts. 2771, 2772 for a deficiency judgment after defendant's 1967 Rambler was sold by the Civil Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans on March 17, 1971.

Plaintiff originally instituted ordinary proceedings against defendant on September 4, 1970, after service of the petition and citation on him took a default judgment on October 14, 1970, and confirmed the default on October 23, 1970. No appeal was taken by defendant and the automobile was sold pursuant to a writ of fieri facias.

Since the automobile was not sold under executory proceedings as defined by C.C.P. Art. 2631 plaintiff was not entitled to a deficiency judgment under C.C.P. Art. 2771, and its suit was properly dismissed by the trial judge. Since plaintiff already had a judgment for the full amount of the debt originally sued upon, a deficiency judgment would be superfluous.

Both parties have addressed themselves exclusively to the question of whether the appraisers complied with LSA-R.S. 13:4365 requiring them "to make a true and just appraisement of the property," prior to the sale and have related this issue to plaintiff's right to a deficiency judgment. While the issue might be raised in other proceedings such as a suit to annul the sale or a suit to enjoin further execution of the original judgment, it is not properly before us, as a defense to a deficiency judgment action which is unauthorized in any event.

The situation between the parties is much the same as that which existed in Hagedorn Motors, Inc. v. Jones, 280 So.2d 643 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Oak Cliff Bank and Trust Co. v. Kittle

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit
Mar 12, 1975
309 So. 2d 742 (La. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

Oak Cliff Bank and Trust Co. v. Kittle

Case Details

Full title:OAK CLIFF BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. EUGENE KITTLE

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Mar 12, 1975

Citations

309 So. 2d 742 (La. Ct. App. 1975)

Citing Cases

Magnolia Island Plantation LLC v. Lucky Family LLC

Even though no court has directly addressed this issue, they have considered the possibility “of challenging…

State v. McElroy

the law would afford relief, where such remedy would be doubtful or might subject the party to vexatious…