YORKWOOD SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS'N v. Thomas
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., October 24, 1975 316 So. 2d 769
YORKWOOD SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS'N v. Thomas, 379 So. 2d 798 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980).
Cited by
- Brandon Wayne Osborn v. Juanita Howington La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
- Walker v. Hingle 179 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- Littleton v. Moss 914 So. 2d 59 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
- Sarpy Properties, Inc. v. Diamond Shoe Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 761 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
- Barnett Marine, Inc. v. Van Den Adel 694 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
- Alessi v. Belanger 644 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
- Bagert v. Goldsmith 504 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
- Lor, Inc. v. Martin Exploration Co. 489 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
- Houma Steel & Supply, Inc. v. Allied Towing Services, Inc. 468 So. 2d 637 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
- Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Guilbault 452 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
- Credit Alliance Corp. v. Rabb 419 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
- Huval Tractor, Inc. v. Journet 413 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Hancock Bank v. Alexander 237 So. 2d 669
- Chas. A. Kaufman Co. v. Gregory 244 La. 766
Opinion text
379 So.2d 798 (1980) YORKWOOD SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. Alvin THOMAS, Jr. and Gloria Dean Thomas. No. 10317. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. January 10, 1980. Adcock, Dupree & Shows, Sharon E. May, Jerry F. Davis, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant. Robert H. Matthews, New Orleans Legal Assistance Corp., Patrick D. Breeden, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees. Before SAMUEL, GULOTTA and GARRISON, JJ. *799 GARRISON, Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dissolving the writ of sequestration by which it had seized defendant's mobile home. We affirm, on the basis that plaintiff failed to allege or prove the grounds upon which writ was issued. Plaintiff's petition combined a suit on a note and chattel mortgage with a prayer for sequestration, which stated: "The mortgaged property is presently in the possession of defendants and it is within their power to conceal, dispose of, or part with or remove same from this parish during the pendancy of this suit, and in order to protect the rights of petitioner, a writ of sequestration should issue herein directing the seizure of said mortgaged property." This allegation is basically a restatement of C.C.P. Art. 3571, which lists the grounds for sequestration. C.C.P. Art. 3506 provides, "The defendant by contradictory motion may obtain the dissolution of a writ of attachment or sequestration, unless the plaintiff proves the grounds upon which the writ was issued. * * *" The defendants filed a motion to dissolve the writ and a hearing was held on the motion, but there was no testimony or other evidence presented by either side. The trial judge granted defendant's motion without giving either oral or written reasons. C.C.P. Art. 3501 provides: "A writ of attachment or sequestration shall issue only when the nature of the claim and the amount thereof, if any, and the grounds relied upon for the issuance for the writ clearly appear from specific facts Shown by the petitioner verified by, or by the separate affidavit of, the petitioner, his counsel, or agent. * * *" [Emphasis added.] Art. 3501 must be strictly and literally complied with because it deals with the extremely harsh remedy of a conservatory writ. Hancock Bank v. Alexander, 237 So.2d 669 (La.1970). A mere conclusory allegation of plaintiff's grounds, such as appears here, fails to show the specific facts constituting petitioner's grounds, and therefore fails to satisfy Art. 3501'§ requirements. See Hancock v. Alexander, supra. The writ was properly dissolved. Moreover, even had plaintiff's allegation been sufficient, plaintiff utterly failed to prove these grounds at the hearing on the motion to dissolve. Once defendant files a motion to dissolve, the burden of proof is shifted to the plaintiff to establish the facts constituting grounds for issuance of the writ. C.C.P. Art. 3506; Charles A. Kaufman C., Ltd. v. Gregory, 244 La. 766 , 154 So.2d 392 (1963). (Although the Kaufman case dealt with attachment rather than sequestration, the provisions of C.C.P. Art. 3506 apply to either writ.) Plaintiff here utterly failed to discharge its burden of proof; thus, defendant was entitled to the order of dissolution. For the reasons above, the district court's judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED.