Butler v. Towd Point Master Funding Tr. 2020-1

• Docket Number: 56,004-CA
• Decision Date: 15 January 2025
• Parties: GLORIA ANN BUTLER Plaintiff-Appellant v. TOWD POINT MASTER FUNDING TRUST 2020-1, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

1

GLORIA ANN BUTLERPlaintiff-Appellant v. TOWD POINT MASTER FUNDING TRUST 2020-1, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEEDefendant-Appellee

No. 56,004-CA

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

January 15, 2025

Appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Morehouse, Louisiana Trial CourtNo. 2023-050Honorable Alvin Rue Sharp, Judge.

RANKIN, YELDELL, & KATZ P.C.By: Alex W. RankinCounsel for Plaintiff-Appellant.

GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, BURR & SMITH By: Lindsay M. YoungTyler J. Minick, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee.

Before STONE, STEPHENS, and HUNTER, JJ.

HUNTER, J.

Plaintiff, Gloria Ann Butler, appeals a district court judgment granting an exception of no cause of action in favor of defendants, Towd Point Master Funding Trust 2020-1 and U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee, and dismissing her case with prejudice.For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

Plaintiff, Gloria Ann Butler, and Eddie Don Butler("the decedent") were married.They separated in 2010 but did not divorce.At some point, the decedent executed a note and mortgage on a manufactured home, which was situated on land located in Morehouse Parish.The land was community property; however, plaintiff did not sign or consent to the mortgage on the manufactured home, and she never lived in the home.The decedent defaulted on the mortgage.

On September 20, 2022, defendants, Towd Point Master Funding Trust 2020-1 and U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee(collectively "Towd"), filed a lawsuit for reformation of mortgage, declarative judgment, quiet title, and other relief against plaintiff and the decedent.Plaintiff was served with the petition but did not file any pleadings or answer to the petition.On December 12, 2022, Towd filed a motion for a default judgment; the district court entered a default judgment in favor of Towd.Plaintiff did not seek a new trial, nor did she appeal.

Subsequently, on February 6, 2023, plaintiff filed a petition to annul the judgment of default.Plaintiff alleged the December 2022 judgment was invalid because "the judgment was taken by mail and without any appearance by petitioner nor any witness testimony, or affidavit testimony."

Plaintiff also alleged Towd failed to produce any evidence to support its petition for a default judgment.

In response, Towd filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action.Towd argued La.C.C.P. art. 2002, which allows certain judgments to be annulled, applies only to technical defects of procedure or form of the judgment.Towd also argued the failure to establish a prima facie case is not a vice of form, and the issue should have been raised in a motion for new trial or by appeal, rather than by an action for nullity.

The district court sustained the exception of no cause of action and dismissed plaintiff's action with prejudice, stating:

***

The Court doesn't resort to equity when the law is clear.Here, in this case, we had a suit filed.We had what appears to be proper service.We had the proper passage of time.A default judgment was secure - ultimately secured.Now, we are basically asking - receiving a request to have it set aside under the discretion for, I will call it, almost social reasons as opposed to legal reasons.

***

Plaintiff appeals.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends the district court erred in sustaining the exception of no cause of action.She argues prior to sustaining the exception, the district court was required to consider the elements of the claims set forth in her petition and attachments to determine whether the petition stated a claim against Towd upon which a remedy may be granted.According to plaintiff, the court was also required to take the well-pleaded facts as true and resolve any doubts or reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff; however, the district court summarily sustained the exception without analyzing plaintiff's pleadings, accepting the facts pled as true, or rendering all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff.

The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition, which is done by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading.Ramey v. DeCaire, 03-1299(La.3/19/04), 869 So.2d 114.No evidence may be introduced at any time to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action.La.C.C.P. art. 931.Therefore, the court reviews the petition and accepts well-pleaded allegations of fact as true.Ramey, supra.All doubts are resolved in favor of the sufficiency of the petition to afford litigants their day in court.Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 12-2742(La.1/28/14), 144 So.3d 876.The issue at the trial of the exception of no cause of action is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought.Ramey, supra.

An appellate court's review of a trial court's ruling sustaining or denying an exception of no cause of action is de novo because the exception raises a question of law, and the trial court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition.Grayson v. Gulledge, 55,214(La.App. 2 Cir.9/27/23), 371 So.3d 1133, writ denied, 23-01437 (La.1/10/24), 376 So.3d 847.

The nullity of a final judgment may be demanded for vices of either form or substance, as provided in Articles 2002 through 2006. La.C.C.P. art. 2001.A final judgment shall be annulled if it is rendered against a defendant who has not been served with process as required by law and who has not waived objection to jurisdiction, or against whom a valid default judgment has not been taken.La.C.C.P. art. 2002(A)(2).

It is well settled La. C.C.P. art 2002 applies only to technical defects of procedure or form of the judgment.Nat'l Income Realty Tr. v. Paddie, 98-2063 (La. 7/2/99).The failure to establish the prima facie case required by La.C.C.P. art. 1702 is not a vice of form.Id., citingHollander v. Wandell, 97-556(La.App. 5 Cir.11/12/97), 703 So.2d 742;State v. One 1990 GMC Sierra Classic Truck, 94-0639(La.App. 4 Cir.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 492, writ denied, 94-3171 (La.2/17/95), 650 So.2d 254.A failure of proof must be raised in a motion for new trial or by appeal, not by an action for nullity.Nat'l Income Realty Tr. v. Paddiesupra, citingFrank L....