David L. McGaha and Melissa B. McGaha v. Franklin Homes, Inc., Gulf Coast Mobile Homes, Inc., Landry Mobile Home Transporters, Inc., and Nta, Inc.
David L. McGaha and Melissa B. McGaha v. Franklin Homes, Inc., Gulf Coast Mobile Homes, Inc., Landry Mobile Home Transporters, Inc., and Nta, Inc., No. 2021-CA-0244 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. Feb. 4, 2022).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- 312 So. 3d 647 not in our corpus
- Caro v. Bradford White Corp. 678 So. 2d 615
- Dela Vergne v. Dela Vergne, III 745 So. 2d 1271
- Ames v. Ohle 97 So. 3d 386
- Turner v. Hidden Lake, LLC of AL 163 So. 3d 66
- In re Med. Review Complaint By Daron Downing 272 So. 3d 55
Opinion text
DAVID L. MCGAHA AND * NO. 2021-CA-0244
MELISSA B. MCGAHA
* COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
FRANKLIN HOMES, INC.,
GULF COAST MOBILE * STATE OF LOUISIANA
HOMES, INC., LANDRY
MOBILE HOME *
TRANSPORTERS, INC., AND
NTA, INC. *
*******
LOBRANO, J. DISSENTS IN PART, CONCURS IN PART, AND ASSIGNS
REASONS.
JCL I concur in part and find that the district court properly dismissed all claims
against Landry Mobile Home Transporters, Inc. However, I would vacate the
portion of the judgment of the district court pertaining to Gulf Coast Mobile
Homes, Inc., Franklin Homes, Inc., and NTA, Inc. and remand for further
proceedings. I find that a trial on the merits is necessary to develop facts relevant
to prescription and peremption1 in this case with respect to these defendants and,
particularly, allegations of contractual fraud.2 This case involves underpinnings of
fraud, bad faith, and misrepresentation throughout the various causes of action set
forth in the McGahas’ petition.3 I am concerned that the district court and the
majority’s opinion conflating a review of causes of action with that of prescription
1
See Allen v. Michaels Dev. Co. I, LP, 20-0330, pp. 7-8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/9/20), 312 So.3d
647, 652; Caro v. Bradford White Corp., 96-0120, p. 10 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/30/96), 678 So.2d
615, 619.
2
La. C.C. art. 1953, et seq.
3
I recognize the importance of foreclosing litigation due to the passage of time; however, in
certain cases, the policies supporting prescription may be outweighed by a need for thorough
legal and factual reviews by the courts. Cases alleging fraud, unequal accessibility, unjust
advantages, and/or bad faith and solidarity of home sellers, designers, and manufacturers are
often those type of cases that require a full evidentiary hearing or trial on the merits in the
interest of justice and the promotion of the common good. Particularly, a determination on these
important issues would promote the general welfare of many coastal communities and residents
in coastal Louisiana residing in modular homes that were designed and manufactured to
withstand hurricane force winds of 140 miles per hour and sold accordingly.
and peremption statutes will cause confusion as to what claims or causes of action
involving fraud and intentional misrepresentation remain. The nature of a cause of
action must be determined before it can be decided which prescriptive or
peremptive term is applicable and whether the facts alleging fraud and
misrepresentation are sufficient to form the basis of an actionable claim and to toll
prescription or to find peremption inapplicable. dela Vergne v. dela Vergne, 99-
0364, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/17/99), 745 So.2d 1271, 1275; Ames v. Ohle, 11-
1540, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 97 So.3d 386, 391, decision clarified on
reh’g (7/11/12).
I also note that the issue of whether the evidence presented at the exception
hearing is sufficient to establish fraud or intentional misrepresentation is a question
of fact, and the fact-finder’s determination will not be overturned unless it is
manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Without a full evidentiary trial, it is
difficult to perform an appellate review as to whether McGahas’ fraud and
intentional misrepresentation allegations are particularly sufficient to toll
prescription or to find peremption inapplicable. I find that referring these matters to
the merits is warranted in this case.4
4
A defendant may raise the exception of prescription “at any time, including on appeal or after
the close of evidence, but prior to its submission after trial.” Turner v. Hidden Lake, LLC of AL,
14-0240, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/15), 163 So.3d 66, 68 (quotation omitted). A district court also
generally has discretion to refer an exception of prescription to the merits. Med. Review
Complaint by Downing, 18-1027, p. 23 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/8/19), 272 So.3d 55, 69 (citing La.
C.C.P. art. 929(B)); Allen, 20-0330, p. 4, 312 So.3d at 650.