Gumina v. Dupas
Decision Date | 06 January 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 1216,1216 |
Citation | 159 So.2d 377 |
Parties | A. J. GUMINA v. Peter T. DUPAS et al. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Irwin, Seelig & Nelkin, David H. Seelig, New Orleans, for A. J. Gummina, appellee.
John M. Holahan, New Orleans, for Ralph Dupas, appellant.
Before McBRIDE, YARRUT and CHASEZ, JJ.
Ralph Dupas has sued for the nullity and to restrain execution of a judgment in personam for $2,643, etc., obtained by A. J. Gumina by default against him for the deficiency balance remaining due on a promissory note after foreclosure of the mortgage on certain real property securing payment of the indebtedness, and appeals from the judgment sustaining the exception of no cause of action interposed by Gumina and dismissing said action of nullity.
One of the asserted grounds for nullity of the judgment is: No appraisement of the mortgaged property was made prior to its sale by the Sheriff under the executory process.
LSA-C.C.P. art. 2723 provides that prior to the sale (in executory proceedings) the property seized must be appraised in accordance with law unless appraisal has been waived in the act evidencing the mortgage or privilege and plaintiff has prayed that the property be sold without appraisement, and the order directing the issuance of the writ of seizure and sale has directed the property to be sold as prayed for.
Under LSA-C.C.P. art. 2771 the creditor may obtain a judgment against the debtor for any deficiency due on the debt after the distribution of the proceeds of the judicial sale only if the property has been sold under the executory proceedings after appraisal in accordance with the provisions of Art. 2723, LSA-C.C.P.
In Dupas' petition for nullity the exact allegation is 'the property was sold without appraisement.' It is well settled that for the purpose of considering an exception of no cause of action, the averments of plaintiff's petition are to be taken as true.
It is provided in LSA-R.S. 13:4106, as amended:
LSA-C.C. art. 12 tersely and emphatically states: 'Whatever is done in contravention of a prohibitory law, is void, although the nullity be not formally directed.'
In Shreveport Auto Finance Corporation v. Harrington, La.App., 113 So.2d 476, our colleagues of the Second Circuit said:
The fact that Dupas made no defense and permitted the entry of the default judgment does not operate as an estoppel to his claiming its nullity. Any judgment rendered for the deficiency balance due on the note, whether by default or otherwise, would have been void ab initio and without legal existence because the law ordained that the debt stood fully satisfied and that the creditor could take no judgment thereon, and Dupas, or any interested person, may show such nullity whenever the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Steele v. Ruiz
... ... Myrick, La.App., 168 So.2d 845, Gumina" v. Dupas, La .App., 159 So.2d 377, Tapp v. Guaranty Finance Company, La.App., 158 So.2d 228, and Hall v. Hall, La.App., 127 So.2d 347 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Bickham Motors, Inc. v. Crain
...benefit of appraisement deprives the creditor of the right to deficiency judgment. Simmons v. Clark, La.App., 64 So.2d 520; Gumina v. Dupas, La.App., 159 So.2d 377. An illegal appraisal, however, does not necessarily vitiate an otherwise legal executory proceedings (Tapp v. Guaranty Finance......
-
Bourgeois v. Sazdoff
...without appraisement and the sale and the deficiency judgment are wholly invalid. Carr v. Lattier, La.App., 188 So.2d 645; Gumina v. Dupas, La.App., 159 So.2d 377; Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Dixon, La.App., 142 So.2d 605; David Investment Company v. Wright, La.App., 89 So.2d 442; Soileau v. Pitre......
-
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Smith
... ... and unwaivable that it prevents even a judgment by default for the "deficiency" in the absence of allegation and proof of sale with appraisal, Gumina v. Dupas, La.App. 4 Cir. 1964, 159 So.2d 377 ... That public policy ordinarily discharges persons secondarily liable because the ... ...