Independent, Inc. v. Watson, 8008
Decision Date | 04 February 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 8008,8008 |
Citation | 394 So.2d 710 |
Parties | The INDEPENDENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael WATSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
McBride & Brewster, Glynn Rozas, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
Dragon & Kellner, Victor Kellner, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FORET, SWIFT and DOUCET, JJ.
This is an action on open account. The Independent, Inc. (Plaintiff) seeks to recover the sum of $2,371.79 from Michael Watson (Defendant).
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Defendant presents the following issues:
(1) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to amend his answer to conform to the evidence and specifically plead novation, and,
(2) Whether the defendant's obligation under the open account was extinguished by payment.
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract on October 20, 1978, by which defendant was obligated to deliver the plaintiff's newspaper to certain subscribers. The plaintiff extended credit by allowing defendant to charge the cost of the newspapers which he delivered. Defendant's credit balance totaled $2,371.79 after ten months of performance under the contract. Defendant executed a promissory note on April 9, 1979, made payable to plaintiff in the amount of $2,678.84. The note was to be paid in monthly installments of $100.00 each until the principal and interest were paid, but defendant defaulted in his payments.
The plaintiff instituted this action on July 26, 1979, seeking recovery on open account instead of the promissory note. Trial of this matter was held on February 12, 1980, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff was awarded $2,371.79 (the amount owed by defendant on open account) together with legal interest and attorney's fees. Defendant was granted a devolutive appeal from that judgment.
Defendant sought to amend his answer to conform to the evidence to plead specifically the affirmative defense of novation. This request was made at the end of the trial and was denied by the trial court as coming too late in the proceedings.
The question is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit defendant to amend his answer.
LSA-C.C.P. Article 1151 provides, in pertinent part:
" ....
There is no evidence of plaintiff's having given its written consent to defendant's request to amend his answer.
The general rule as to allowing amendments after an answer is filed is that the trial judge has much discretion in such matters and that his ruling will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of the discretion vested in him. Calvary Tabernacle v. Louisiana Central Bank, 384 So.2d 814 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1980); Sikes v. McLean Trucking Company, 383 So.2d 111 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1980); Brooks v. Fondren, 199 So.2d 588 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967).
This Court, in Calvary Tabernacle v. Louisiana Central Bank, supra, said, at page 816, that:
3
Here, defendant's request came upon conclusion of the trial and raised a new affirmative defense of which plaintiff had no prior notice. We find no abuse of the discretion accorded the trial court.
Defendant also argues that evidence had been adduced without objection which tended to show that the debt, upon which plaintiff brought its action, was novated by plaintiff's acceptance of his promissory note. Therefore, he argues that there was an automatic amendment of his answer to conform to the evidence adduced on the issue of novation.
LSA-C.C.P. Article 1154 governs the amendment of pleadings to conform to the evidence. It reads:
The court, in Wallace v. Hanover Insurance Company of New York, 164 So.2d 111 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1964), writ refused, 246 La. 598, 165 So.2d 486 (1964), had occasion to interpret LSA-C.C.P. Article 1154 and the federal sources from which it was derived. It concluded that there are two procedures for amending pleadings to conform to the evidence. The first is an amendment requiring no written or oral pleadings as the original pleadings are simply deemed amended to conform to the proof of issues tried by express or implied consent. The second procedure 1 authorizes the court to allow the amendment of pleadings where the evidence offered is objected to.
The first procedure was discussed in Wallace v. Hanover Insurance Company of New York, supra, on page 118, where it was stated:
LSA-C.C.P. Article 1005 2 requires that the answer set forth any affirmative defenses upon which a party will rely. Defendant's answer failed to set forth the affirmative defense of novation. 3
However, the rule pertaining to an automatic amendment of the pleadings does apply when evidence of an affirmative defense is adduced without objection from the opposing party. Our Supreme Court, in DLJ of Louisiana # 1 v. Green Thumb, Inc., 376 So.2d 121 (La.1979), recognized this in Footnote 9 on page 122, where the Court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dunaway v. Spain
...121 (La.1979); R.T.L. Corporation v. Baton Rouge Equipment Rentals, Inc., 433 So.2d 299 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983); Independent, Inc. v. Watson, 394 So.2d 710 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1981). This assignment of error is not properly before this For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district cou......
-
Dean v. Nunez, CA-5394.
...of discretion. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1152; Strecker v. Credico Financial, Inc., 444 So.2d 783 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984); Independent, Inc. v. Watson, 394 So.2d 710 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1981). The jurisprudence reflects that pre-trial amendments raising new issues are to be permitted unless prejudice to ......
-
White v. Cumis Ins. Soc.
...ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of the broad discretion vested in him. Independent, Inc. v. Watson, 394 So.2d 710 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1981). As noted by this Court in Calvary Tabernacle v. Louisiana Central Bank, 384 So.2d 814 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1980), rev......
-
CDT, Inc. v. Greener & Sumner Architects, Inc.
...White v. Cumis Ins. Soc., 415 So.2d 574 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982), writ denied, 420 So.2d 164 (La.1982); Independent, Inc. v. Watson, 394 So.2d 710 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1981). We find the case of Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Braud, 327 So.2d 183 (La.App. 4th Cir.1976) to present an analogous......