Cook v. Hibernia Nat. Bank
Cook v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 847 So. 2d 617 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002).
Cited by
- Potier v. Morris Bart, L.L.C. 214 So. 3d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
- University of Louisiana Monroe Facilities, Inc. v. JPI Apartment Development, L.P. 151 So. 3d 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- Regions Bank v. Weber 53 So. 3d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
- Lestelle v. Asbestos Claims Management Corp. 998 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
- Chad Easterling v. Royal Manufactured Housing, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
- Easterling v. ROYAL MANUFACTURED HOUSING 963 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
- French Quarter Realty v. Gambel 921 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
- Paz v. BG Real Estate Services, Inc. 921 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
- Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp. 908 So. 2d 1 La. 2005
- Dufrene v. HBOS MFG., LP 872 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
- Damrill v. IMINORITIES. COM., INC. 869 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
- Lincoln Builders, Inc. v. RAINTREE INVEST. CORP. 866 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Opinion text
847 So.2d 617 (2002) Debra Dean COOK, et al. v. HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK, et al. No. 2002-C-0151. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. March 15, 2002. Peter J. Losavio, Jr., Ronald J. Savoie, Losavio Law Firm, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Plaintiff/Relator Debra Dean Cook, et al. Corinne Ann Morrison, James C. Young, Heather M. Valliant, Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, L.L.P., New Orleans, Counsel for Defendant/Respondent Hibernia National Bank. Court composed of Judge MIRIAM G. WALTZER, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY and Judge DAVID S. GORBATY. KIRBY, J. WRIT DENIED Interpretation of a contract is the interpretation of the common intent of the parties. LSA-C.C. art.2045. When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties' intent. LSA-C.C. art.2046. The words of a contract must be given their generally prevailing meaning. LSA-C.C. art.2047. Here, the contract specifically and clearly provided that jury trial was waived. Plaintiff is an experienced business woman in these documents. The court did not err in finding the contracts clear and explicit, in refusing to consider parol evidence, and in striking the request for jury.