Kenneth J. Daigle, Individually and in his capacity as the Representative of the Succession of June P. LaFrance and the Succession of George L. Daigle III v. Karen Meyers

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

KENNETH J. DAIGLE, NO. 2021 CW 0787
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS ( PAGE 1 OF 2)
CAPACITY AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

SUCCESSION OF JUNE P.
LAFRANCE AND THE SUCCESSION
OF GEORGE L. DAIGLE III

VERSUS

KAREN MEYERS OCTOBER 1, 2021

In Re: Kenneth J. Daigle, individually and in his capacity as
the representative of the succession of June P.
LaFrance and the succession of George L. Daigle III,

applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District
Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2020- 12765.

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.

WRIT DENIED.

PMC
MRT

Welch, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. In her
Answer to Petition for Damages
plaintiff' s and Declaratory and

Injunctive Relief, defendant, Karen Meyers, specifically
admitted that plaintiff is " entitled to the Funds/ accounts
herein described[,]" is entitled to a judgment " declaring [ him
to be the] owner of the Funds and requiring [ Meyers] to return

the Funds to Plaintiff, as well as fruits, products, or other

relief to which [ he] is entitled[,]" and that she has " withheld

possession of the Funds or has otherwise disposed of the Funds
to which Plaintiff is entitled with no right or basis of
doing
so." See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1004.

Conversion can be committed when possession is withheld

from the owner or possessor, with its intent simply being to
exercise a dominion or control over the goods which is in fact
inconsistent with the plaintiff' s rights. Commercial Flooring
and Mini Blinds, Inc. v. Edenfield, 2013- 0523 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
2/ 14/ 14), 138 So. 3d 30, 38- 39 & Louisiana State Bar Assn v.

Hinrichs, 486 So. 2d 116, 121 ( La. 1986). Moreover, Meyers'
Answer did not provide any affirmative defense or justification
for her possession of the subject funds in question. Therefore,
based on the admissions contained in Meyers' Answer, I find that
plaintiff' s legal right to the subject funds is clearly
established, and would grant his Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, recognizing and maintaining his right to the subject

funds, consisting of $ 89, 000. 00, and order defendant, Karen
Meyers, to restore possession of the funds to plaintiff. See
Gibbens v.
Wendy' s Foods, Inc., 31, 487 ( La. App. 2d Cir.
1/ 20/ 99), 729 So. 2d 629, 631 & Louisiana Rentals,
Machinery
L. L. C. v. Kean Miller, L. L. P., 2017- 1768 ( La. 1st CIr.
App.
2/ 20/ 19), 2019 WL 759935 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2019- 0464
La. 6/ 17/ 19), 274 So. 3d 1260. However, I would deny the writ in

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2021 CW 0787
PAGE 2 OF 2)

all other respects, as the amounts of any fruits, products, or

other damages sought
by plaintiff, were not sufficiently set

forth in his petition to allow for a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

1

1/

EPUTY CL RK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT