94-1000 La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/95, Miller v. Potier
Decision Date | 01 February 1995 |
Citation | 649 So.2d 1130 |
Parties | 94-1000 La.App. 3 Cir |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Michael A. Harris, Breaux Bridge, for Charles E. Miller et ux.
Archie Paul Joseph, Breaux Bridge, for Whitney Potier et ux.
Before DOUCET, THIBODEAUX and SULLIVAN, JJ.
[94-1000 La.App. 3 Cir. 1] DOUCET, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in a suit on a promissory note.
The record contains neither a transcript of the trial nor narrative of facts. However, the following facts have been gleaned from the trial judge's reasons for judgment and the exhibits found of record.
On July 2, 1991, the plaintiffs, Charles and Darlene Miller, sold the defendants, Whitney and Rebecca Potier, a parcel of land and a mobile home via credit sale. In connection with the sale, the defendants executed a promissory note for $32,000 payable to the plaintiffs, Charles and Darlene Miller. The interest rate on the note was 12%. The note was payable in 120 monthly installments of $427.29 beginning July 1, 1991. It provided for 25% attorney's fees in case of default. A counter letter was also executed. It stated that: "At any time, Whitney Potier and Rebecca Potier may satisfy the Credit Sale with Mortgage by payment of the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($30,000.00) DOLLARS." The Potiers paid the first installment. In September 1991, the Potiers made a lump sum payment of $14,000 with money from a worker's compensation settlement received by Mr. Potier. Mr. Potier's attorney forwarded the funds to the Miller's attorney, [94-1000 La.App. 3 Cir. 2] Michael Harris. According to a letter accompanying the check, the money was to be used to pay off a pre-existing mortgage on the property. The Potiers were sent a copy of the letter. Donna Latiolais, secretary to Mr. Harris, testified that the plaintiff's were made aware of pre-existing mortgages on the property at least a week before the sale. To the contrary, Mrs. Potier testified at trial that she discovered that there was a mortgage on the property only in September 1991 when she went to the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court's office. She called the mortgage holder, Roy Castille. She testified that he told her that the mortgage was being foreclosed upon and that she and her husband should move. There is nothing else of record that shows that the property was being foreclosed upon. The Potiers left the property and stopped making mortgage payments. A certificate of cancellation was entered into evidence. It shows that the mortgage in favor of Mr. Castille was canceled on October 10, 1991. In July 1992, a chattel mortgage on the mobile home was canceled.
On January 15, 1992, the Millers sued to collect the sums due on the promissory note. The plaintiffs answered. As a defense, they asserted that the September lump sum payment was meant to pay the monthly installments until August 1994.
Defendants also filed a reconventional demand for recision of the sale and return of the money paid. In connection with the reconventional demand they claimed that the Millers breached their warranty of peaceable possession since the credit sale stated that the property was free and clear of encumbrances.
After a trial on the merits the trial judge found in favor of the plaintiffs. He rejected the Potiers' reconventional demand for recision The Potiers appeal.
Since we have no transcript of the trial our review is necessarily limited. As was stated in Carter v. Barber Bros. Contracting Co., Inc., 623 So.2d 8, 10 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 629 So.2d 1180 (La.1993): "The appellant has the duty to secure either a transcript of the testimony or a narrative of facts; the inadequacy of the record is imputable to the appellant." See also Preuett v. Preuett, 517 So.2d 848 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987).
Simmons v. Yelverton, 513 So.2d 504, 506-507 (La.App. 2 Cir.1987). Accordingly, we will limit our review to a consideration of whether the trial judge correctly applied the law to his factual findings.
On appeal the Potiers are apparently reasserting their main defenses from the trial level. They claim that the lump sum payment was meant as a pre-payment of future installments, and represented payment of the installments through July, 1994. On this point, the trial judge found as follows:
In Durr v. Dorsey, 153 So.2d 484, 486 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ refused, 244 La. 1016, 156 So.2d 225 (La.1963) the court found that a lump sum payment of part of the indebtedness under a note did not relieve the mortgagor of her obligation to made monthly installment payments.
[94-1000 La.App. 3 Cir. 4]
Having reviewed the terms of the note considering this ruling, we find nothing therein which would allow a lump-sum payment to relieve the Potiers of the obligation to make monthly installment payments. It provides for installment payments to be made "... beginning on the 1st day of July 1991, and due and payable on the 1st of each month thereafter, until paid ..." Accordingly, we find no error in the trial judge's determination that the payment was a principal reduction rather than a pre-payment of installments.
The Potiers next argue that the encumbrances constituted a breach of an express warranty contained in the credit sale. This breach, they argue, caused them to be disturbed in their peaceable possession of the property by actual eviction. They further argued that the trial judge erred in allowing the parole evidence of Donna Latiolais and the letter from Mel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gen. M v. John Stergiou & Main Marine Repair & Indus. Cleaning Co.
... ... ,000 down payment being due “on or before May 3, 2006” and, on the first day of each month, ... v. Newcourt Inc., 78 F.3d 146, 152 (5th Cir.1996) (Benavides, J., concurring) (“Industry ... For example, in Miller v. Potier, 649 So.2d 1130 (La.Ct.App.1995), a ... ...
- General Metal Fabricating Corp. v. Stergiou, 01-11-00460-CV
-
Steinhoff v. Steinhoff, 03-24.
... ... This represents a payment of 63.3% of the judgment amount attributable to new money ... in a position similar to our position in Miller v. Potier, 94-1000 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/95); 649 ... ...
-
97-636 La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/97, Barrois v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
... ... 5 Cir. 3] prior to trial on the merits). Relative to the ... ), writ denied, 629 So.2d 1180 (La.1993); Miller v. Potier, 94-1000 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/9), 649 ... ...