Tower Credit, Inc v. Veronica F Profit and Michael T Lee

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2025 CA 0324

TOWER CREDIT, INC.

VERSUS

VERONICA F. PROFIT AND MICHAEL T. LEE

Judgment Rendered:

ON APPEAL FROM
BATON ROUGE CITY COURT
IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBER 17- 07131

THE HONORABLE JUDY MOORE VENDETTO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Jennifer L. Simmons Attorneys for Defendant -Appellant
Kyle M. Sepulveda Guerbet, LLC
New Orleans, Louisiana

Richard D. Bankston Attorneys for Plaintiff A
- ppellee
Abbey S. Knight Tower Credit, Inc.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

BEFORE: MILLER, EDWARDS, AND FIELDS, JJ.

FIELDS, J.

This matter is before us on appeal by defendant, Guerbet, LLC, from a

judgment of the city court denying its " Motion to Reopen the Garnishment and

Motion to Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against Guerbet LLC." For the reasons

that follow, we recall the rule to show cause, maintain the appeal, and affirm the

judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 8, 2017, Tower Credit, Inc. (" Tower") filed suit on a promissory

note in the Baton Rouge City Court against Veronica F. Profit and Michael T. Lee

seeking judgment in its favor, and against Profit and Lee, for "$ 7, 997.69 together

with interest from the date ofjudicial demand...." Profit and Lee failed to respond

to Tower' s suit, and Tower obtained a default judgment against them on August 2,

2019. Tower filed a motion for examination ofjudgment debtor, and the city court

ordered Profit, as judgment debtor, to appear in city court on March 10, 2021. On

March 10, 2021, the matter came before the court pursuant to assignment for

judgment debtor rule, and Profit failed to appear. The city court issued a bench
warrant for Profit.

Tower subsequently filed a petition for garnishment, naming Guerbet, LLC
Guerbet") as garnishee. In the petition, Tower alleged that it had good reason to

believe that Guerbet employed Lee and was indebted to him. The city court signed

an order directing that Guerbet be cited as garnishee and ordering Guerbet to answer,

under oath and in writing, garnishment interrogatories within thirty days from

service of process as provided by law.

On March 4, 2024, ' Tower filed a " Motion for Judgment Pro Confesso" in

which it asserted Guerbet was served with garnishment interrogatories on December

11 2023, and Guerbet failed to answer the interrogatories within thirty days after the
date of service. Therein, Tower also prayed that Guerbet be ordered to appear and

2

show cause why judgment should not be entered against it in the amount of the

default judgment rendered in the suit, together with all cost of the proceedings, and

a reasonable attorney' s fee. The rule to show cause was set for June 12, 2024.

On June 6, 2024, Guerbet fax -filed a " Request to Set Aside Hearing to Show

Cause." Therein, Guerbet admitted that the garnishment interrogatories were not

answered within thirty days after the date of service, but the answers to the
20241,
interrogatories were completed on May 2, and were provided to counsel for

Tower Credit. Guerbet explained that Tower' s attorney received a verification of

employment from " The Work Number" 2 on May 9, 2024, which indicated Lee was

an employee of Guerbet America, LLC, which is an affiliate of Guerbet and its

registered agent for service of process in Louisiana. Guerbet asserted the information

provided by " The Work Number" was incorrect and Lee was not nor had he ever

been an employee of Guerbet America, LLC or Guerbet. " In support, Guerbet

attached an email from a representative of " The Work Number" ( Ashley Lauer,

Client Relationship Manager) to multiple recipients, including " Yulie, Michele, and

Eliana," confirming that the information previously provided was incorrect. Guerbet

maintained it did not have any " property, funds[,] or credits" of Lee under its control.

Guerbet asserted that a judgment against it should not be entered as Lee was not nor

had he ever been its employee.'

On June 12, 2024, the city court rendered judgment in favor of Tower and

against Guerbet in the amount of "$7, 997. 69, together with interest from the date of

judicial demand ( August 8, 2017) at the rate of 28. 88% per year until June 5, 2020,

1 Guerbet also explained Guerbet America, LLC, an affiliate of Guerbet, is the registered agent for
service of process for Guerbet in Louisiana. Guerbet America, LLC and Guerbet are separate legal
entities. Guerbet America, LLC received service of Tower' s motion for judgment pro confesso on
April 16, 2024, and the garnishment interrogatories.

2 The Work Number is an organization that provides employment verification.

3 The record on appeal does not contain a ruling on the " Request to Set Aside Hearing to Show
Cause." However, Guerbet indicates that its motion was not granted.

3

and 18% per year thereafter until paid in full, together with 25% of the aggregate of

principal and interest due as attorney' s fee, all costs of [the] proceedings, and an

additional attorney' s fee of $300. 00 pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2413.

On July 11, 2024, Guerbet filed the " Motion to Reopen the Garnishment and

Motion to Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against Guerbet LLC," contending that

it did not employ Lee and has never been the employer of Lee; therefore, the

garnishment judgment against it should be vacated due to alleged procedural defects

in the garnishment proceedings. Tower opposed the motion, asserting Guerbet' s

reliance on La. R.S. 13: 3923, et seq.— the statutory guidelines for garnishing a

judgment debtor' s wages -- was misplaced.

At the hearing on the " Motion to Reopen the Garnishment and Motion to

Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against Guerbet LLC" held October 30, 2024,

counsel for Guerbet argued that Guerbet never employed Lee, and it never possessed

any of Lee' s property. Counsel for Guerbet admitted that Guerbet failed to timely

answer the interrogatories within thirty days ofthe December 1, 2023 date of service,

but counsel asserted Guerbet eventually answered the interrogatories approximately

one month before the June 12, 2024 hearing on the judgmentpro confesso. In support

of counsel for Guerbet' s arguments that the city court could reopen the proceedings,

counsel relied on this court' s decision in Tower Credit, Inc. v. McGee, 2023- 0787

La. App. lst Cir. 9/ 6/ 24), 405 So. 3d 612, writ denied sub nom, TKTMJ, Inc. v.

Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 2024- 00660 ( La. 10/ 23/ 24), 394 So. 3d

1287, and writ denied, 2024- 01392 ( La. 1/ 28/ 25), 399 So. 3d 418. Guerbet' s counsel

noted that Tower did not traverse Guerbet' s answers to the interrogatories and relied

on McGee to argue that the answers to interrogatories, which stated Lee never

worked for Guerbet, were sufficient to rebut Tower' s prima facie case. Counsel for

Guerbet' s position was that the affidavit, the letter, and the answer to interrogatories,

which all stated that Lee never worked for Guerbet were sufficient to rebut Tower' s

19

prima facie case. Counsel for Guerbet attempted to introduce a motion with an

attached affidavit that attested that Lee did not work for Guerbet, but counsel for

Tower objected on the basis that the affidavit was not authenticated and was thus

hearsay. Tower' s counsel further argued that the affidavit was not relevant at the

hearing to reopen the judgment pro confesso. '

Counsel for Tower primarily argued that the amendment to La. R.S. 13: 3923

precluded the court from reopening the hearing. Counsel for Tower further asserted

he had evidence to show that " maybe" Guerbet' s answers to the interrogatories were

not true. He pointed out there were no witnesses nor opponents present at the pro

confesso hearing. Counsel for Tower noted that McGee was distinguishable from

the instant case, pointing out that the defendants in McGee were present at the pro

confesso hearing. Following arguments, the city court denied Guerbet' s " Motion to

Reopen the Garnishment and Motion to Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against

Guerbet LLC." On October 30, 2024, the city court signed a judgment in conformity

with its oral ruling.

Guerbet filed the instant appeal. On appeal, Guerbet asserts three interrelated

assignments of error. Specifically Guerbert contends the city court erred under La.

R.S. 13: 3923 by: 1) failing to take judicial notice of Guerbet' s verified answers to

the garnishment interrogatories; 2) failing to deny Tower' s motion for judgment pro

confesso; and 3) failing to grant Guerbet' s " Motion to Reopen the Garnishment and

Motion to Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against Guerbet LLC" after Guerbet

showed no employment relationship with Lee, indebtedness to Lee, or possession of

Lee' s property in its verified answers that were filed into the record before the pro

confesso hearing.

4 The city court did not rule on the objection to the affidavit being introduced, but it does not appear
that the court considered that evidence in reaching its ruling.

5

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

After the appeal was lodged, this court, ex proprio motu, issued a rule to show

cause order finding an apparent defect in the October 30, 2024 judgment and ordered

the parties to show by briefs why the appeal should not be remanded to correct the

defect.' Specifically, this court noted the judgment appeared to lack appropriate

decretal language as it failed to name specific parties who the ruling was in favor of,

against, and identify the relief awarded as required by La. Code Civ. P. art. 1918( A).

Following briefing by the parties this court issued an interim order, in which it noted:

T] he October 30, 2024 judgment on appeal does not contain
any language identifying the name of the party in whose favor the relief
is awarded or the name of the party against whom the relief is awarded.
As further noted in the Mule to Show Cause Order, the October 30, 2024
judgment also fails to dispose of and/ or dismiss the Motion to Reopen
the Garnishment and Motion to Vacate the Garnishment Judgment and
the claims of the movant, Guerbet, LLC, as set forth therein. See e. g.
Sauce v. Burke, 2022- 0541 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 7/ 22), 356 So. 3d 439,
445.

This court then remanded the matter for the limited purpose of inviting the city court,
in accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1951, to issue an amended judgment that

corrected the identified deficiencies and complied with La. Code Civ. P. arts.

1918( A), 1951, and 2088( A)( 12).

On August 15, 2025, the record was supplemented with an " Amended

Judgment from October 30th, 2024," signed August 4, 2025. The amended judgment

5 In response to the show cause order, Guerbet filed a responsive brief, agreeing that the October
30, 2024 judgment does not contain the proper decretal anguage and urging this court to remand
the matter to the trial court. Tower filed a memorandum, in which it agreed that the October 30,
2024 judgment lacks decretal language. It also argued that the judgment was not a final judgment
but instead an interlocutory judgment.

This court has held that judgments denying petitions to annul or motions to annul are appealable,
where they dispose of the controversy presented within the context of the nullity action. See e. g.
Carrington v. Carrington, 2024- 1016 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 11/ 25), 411 So. 3d 852, 862, writ
denied, 2025- 00830 ( La. 10/ 1/ 25), 417 So. 3d 576. Consistent with the caption of its Motion to
Reopen the Garnishment and Motion to Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against Guerbet LLC,
Guerbet strictly sought to reopen the garnishment proceeding and vacate the June 12, 2024
judgment in favor of Tower. We construe this motion to be a motion/ rule to annul, and find the
October 30, 2024, judgment denying Guerbet' s motion final and appealable, because it disposed
of the entire controversy presented in the motion to vacate.
0

did not contain appropriate decretal language. Therefore, this court issued a second

interim order in which it noted " the October 30, 2024 judgment on appeal fails to

dispose of and/ or dismiss the Motion to Reopen the Garnishment and Motion to

Vacate the Garnishment Judgment and the claims of the movant, Guerbet, LLC, as

set forth therein. See e. g. Sauce v. Burke, 2022- 0541 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 7/ 22),

356 So. 3d 439, 445." This court again remanded the matter for the limited purpose

of inviting the city court, in accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1951, to issue an

amended judgment that specifically indicated whether the judgment on appeal

disposed of and/ or dismissed the Motion to Reopen the Garnishment and Motion to

Vacate the Garnishment Judgment and the claims of movant, Guerbet, LLC, as set

forth therein and complied with La. Code Civ. P. arts. 1918"( A), 1951, and

2088( A)(2).

On October 7, 2025, the record was supplemented with a " Second Amended

Judgment From October 30th, 2024," signed October 7, 2025. The second amended

judgment contains proper decretal language, and as such, we find that the October

30, 2024 judgment as amended by the October 7, 2025 judgment is a valid final

judgment. Therefore, we recall the rule to show cause, and maintain the appeal.

A garnishment proceeding is nothing more than a streamlined legal process

for obtaining the seizure of property of a judgment debtor in the hands of a third

party. McGee, 405 So. 3d at 615. The test of a garnishee' s liability to the judgment

creditor is whether the garnishee has in his hands the principal debtor' s property,

funds, or credits for the recovery of which the debtor has a present subsisting cause

of action.
First Pay, Inc. v. Dukes, 2023- 1272 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 20/ 24), 405

So.3d 1066, 1070- 71, writrg anted, 2024- 01565 ( La. 4/ 1/ 25), 403 So. 3d 596, rev' d,

2024- 01565 ( La. 10/ 24/ 25), 421 So. 3d 942.

7

Louisiana' s general garnishment provisions are set forth in La. Code Civ. P.

art. 2411, et seq., and specialized wage garnishment procedures are located in La.

R.S. 13: 3921, et seq. First Pay, Inc., 405 So. 3d at 1071. The provisions must be

read in para materia and must be considered supportive of each other. Otherwise,

the wage garnishment proceedings could be ignored by obtaining judgment under

codal provisions thereby precluding the garnishee from seeking relief under the

statutory provisions creating his liability in the first instance. See McGee, 405 So.3d

at 615. The effects of the garnishee' s failure to answer garnishment interrogatories

within the appropriate delays are governed by La. Code Civ. P. art. 2413, which

provides:

A. If the garnishee fails to answer within the delay provided by Article
2412, the judgment creditor may proceed by contradictory motion
against the garnishee for the amount of the unpaid judgment, with
interest and costs. When the garnishee is a state agency or department
within the executive branch of state government, the party designated
for service of garnishment petitions in Article 2412( B) shall be notified
of the intent to file such a motion by certified mail at least fifteen days
prior to the filing of the motion. The failure ofthe garnishee to answer
prior to the filing of'such a contradictory motion is prima facie proof
that he has property of or is indebted to the judgment debtor to the
extent of the judgment, interest, and costs.

B. Judgment shall be rendered against the garnishee on trial of the
motion unless he proves that he had no property of and was not indebted
to the judgment debtor. If on the trial of such motion, the garnishee
proves the amount of such property or indebtedness, the judgment
against the garnishee shall be limited to the delivery of the property or
payment of the indebtedness, as provided in Article 2415.

C. Regardless of the decision on the contradictory motion, the court
shall render judgment against the garnishee for the costs and a
reasonable attorney fee for the motion.

Emphasis added). Under these provisions, the garnishee' s failure to file a sworn

answer to garnishment interrogatories creates a rebuttable prima facie case against

the garnishee and entitles the seizing creditor to move for a judgment pro confesso,

i.e., a judgment against the garnishee for the amount of the judgment, interest, and

costs. First Pay, Inc., 405 So. 3d at 1072.

Though a garnishee' s failure to file a sworn answer to garnishment

interrogatories entitles the judgment creditor to file a motion for judgment pro

confesso, said motion is not self-executing. Instead, " until a contradictory motion is

filed against the garnishee for the amount of the judgment, the stage is not set for a

default judgment against the garnishee." First Pay, Inc., 405 So. 3d at 1072.

Garnishment procedure is addressed in La. R.S. 13: 3923, which provides:

A. It shall not be necessary that more than one writ of garnishment or
one set of interrogatories be served in a garnishment proceeding, but
the court shall render judgment for the monthly, semimonthly, weekly,
or daily payments to be made to the seizing creditor according to the
manner best suited to the circumstances, until the indebtedness is paid.
The garnishee shall serve upon the garnishee the citation, the petition,
the garnishment interrogatories, the notice of seizure, and a statement
of sums due under the garnishment, such statement to include but not
be limited to the principal, interest, court costs incurred to date, and
attorney fees due under the judgment. The court, in its discretion, may
reopen the case upon the motion of any party concerned for evidence
affecting the proper continuance of the garnishment judgment, and the
court shall retain jurisdiction to amend or set aside its garnishment
judgment at any time in its discretion; however, all effects ofthe seizure
by garnishment shall cease upon the termination of employment of the
debtor with the garnishee, unless the debtor is reinstated or reemployed
within one hundred eighty days after the termination. Should judgment
by default be taken against any party garnishee, he may obtain a
reopening of the case upon proper showing and within the discretion of
the court.

B. Nothing in this Section is meant to affect judgments rendered
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Article 2413.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Guerbet contends the city court erred by failing to take judicial notice of its

verified answers at or prior to the pro confesso hearing and by failing reopen the

garnishment and/ or deny Tower' s motion for judgment pro confesso.

In the present matter, it is undisputed that Guerbet was served with and failed

to answer garnishment interrogatories under oath prior to the filing of the motion for

judgment pro confesso. Therefore, primafacie proof was established, and the burden

shifted to Guerbet to prove at the trial on the motion that it had no property of and
was not indebted to Tower. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 2413( B). The fact that the

9

interrogatory answers were made part of the record is not in dispute, but the fact that

Guerbet filed its answers to the garnishment interrogatories prior to the trial on the

motion did not relieve Guerbet of the burden of rebutting the prima facie proof

established by its initial failure to answer. See McGee, 405 So.3d at 617- 18. The

question is whether the answers were sufficient to show Guerbet did not employ Lee

or possess his property. Id. at 618.

It is undisputed that Guerbet failed to appear at the pro confesso hearing and

there was no evidence or testimony introduced at the hearing. In Guerbet' s answers

to the interrogatories, it denied ever employing Lee or possessing any of Lee' s

property. In fact, Guerbet indicated that Lee was employed by Liebel-Flarsheim

Company, LLC. However, in its " Request to Set Aside Hearing To Show Cause",

Guerbet acknowledged that on May 9, 2024, Tower received a verification of

employment from " The Work Number" that Lee was an employee of Guerbet

America, LLC. Guerbet further asserted that " The Work Number" has since

confirmed that it provided Tower with incorrect information. In support, Guerbet

attached to its " Request to Set Aside Hearing To Show Cause" an email from Ashley

Lauer, Client Relationship Manager, representing " The Work Number." In the

email, Lauer confirmed " the name( s) did reflect incorrectly as of 5/ 30/ 24, anything

prior to that would have shown the incorrect company name."

The court may permit the late filing of answers " to rebut the judgment

creditor' s primafacie case." Id. at 618. Therefore, the jurisprudence considers tardy

answers, in the context of a pro confesso hearing, as rebuttal evidence. This court

has explained that " Where a garnishee' s answers are not traversed and disproved,

the extent of his liability is to be tested solely by his said answers." Id.

Considering there was no evidence or testimony presented at the hearing, the

trial court' s decision to grant the motion for judgment pro confesso was necessarily

based on its consideration of the interrogatory answers of record. In Guerbet' s

10

answers to the interrogatories, it explicitly denied ever employing Lee and

possessing any of his property, but in Guerbet' s Request to Set Aside the Hearing to
Show Cause, it acknowledged that Tower received information from " The Work

Number," which indicated that Lee worked for Guerbet America, LLC. However,

Guerbet alleged that " The Work Number" later confirmed that the information it had

initially provided Tower was incorrect. Had Guerbet attended the contradictory

hearing, it would have been given the opportunity to present evidence to demonstrate

that Lee was not its employee and the city court would have been given the

opportunity to weigh the evidence in this matter. Implicit in the city court' s ruling is

a finding that Guerbet' s answers to the interrogatory was not sufficient to show it

did not employ Lee or possess his property. See McGee, 405 So. 3d at 618.

Therefore, we find this argument to be without merit.

Guerbet contends the city court erred by denying its " Motion to Reopen the

Garnishment and Motion to Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against Guerbet

LLC," as the city court maintained jurisdiction over the garnishment proceedings

and it filed its verified answers into the record prior to the pro confesso hearing.
Appellant br. 18).

Recently, in First Pay, Inc., 405 So. 3d 1066, this court addressed whether

La. R.S. 13: 3923 authorizes a city court to reopen a case after the court grants a

judgment pro confesso. In that case, after the city court issued an order of

garnishment to the judgment debtor' s alleged employer, Quantix, garnishment

interrogatories were issued to Quantix by personal service. Quantix did not answer

the garnishment interrogatories within the delays provided by law. The successor -

in -interest to the judgment creditor, Richard D. Bankston, Attorney at Law, Inc.,

filed a motion for judgment pro confesso pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2413. The

motion for judgment pro confesso was set for hearing, and Quantix received notice

11

of same and provided answers to the garnishment interrogatories to Mr. Bankston.

However, Quantix did not file its answers to the garnishment interrogatories into the

record. First Pay, Inc., 405 So. 3d at 1069.

Quantix did not appear at the hearing on the motion for judgment pro

confesso. Later that same day, the city court signed a written judgment in favor of

Mr. Bankston, in the full sum of $32, 873. 04, together with interest and attorney' s

fees. Over two months after the city court signed the judgment pro confesso, Quantix

filed a " Motion to [ Reopen] Garnishment Proceedings" pursuant to La. R.S.

13: 3923, asserting that it never employed the judgment debtor, and it was never

indebted to him or responsible for any debt he purportedly owed the judgment

creditor.
Id. at 1069. Following a hearing on the " Motion to [ Reopen] Garnishment

Proceedings", the city court set aside and vacated the judgment pro confesso. Mr.

Bankston appealed. Id. at 1070.

On appeal, this court found the current version of La. R.S. 13: 3923 applied to

the motion to reopen the garnishment proceedings, noting the plain language of La.

R. S. 13: 3923( B) explicitly stated that the statute is not meant to affect judgments

rendered pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2413. Therefore, this court concluded that

the pro confesso judgment rendered pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2413 was not

subject to being amended or vacated by the city court pursuant to paragraph ( A) of

La. R.S. 13: 3923. This court reversed the city court' s judgment granting the motion

to reopen the garnishment proceedings and vacating the judgment pro confesso

pursuant to La. R.S. 13: 3923. Id. at 1074.

The Louisiana Supreme Court granted writs to consider whether La. R.S.

13: 3923, as amended by 2022 La. Acts No. 265, § 1 ( eff. Aug. 1, 2022), provides a

trial court discretion to reopen and reconsider a judgment pro confesso against a

garnishee. The Court reversed this court' s judgment and reinstated the city court' s

12

judgment, which vacated its original judgment in favor of Mr. Bankston and against

Quantix. First Pay, Inc. v. Dukes, 2024- 01565 ( La. 10/ 24/ 25), 421 So3d 942, 949.

The Supreme Court agreed with this court' s majority opinion that, pursuant to

the rules of statutory interpretation La. R.S. 13: 3923 is clear and unambiguous. The

Court, nevertheless, did not end its inquiry there. The Supreme Court noted, " the

trial court was not informed before the [ pro confesso] hearing that Mr. Bankston

had, in fact, received Quantix' s sworn answers to interrogatories— which denied

any involvement with the purported debtor -employee." First Pay, Inc., 421

So3d 942, 947- 48. The Supreme Court found that "[ p] recluding reopening this

proceeding, where the trial court' s judgment was based upon the omission of

material information, would lead to a demonstrably absurd result." Id. at 948.

The instant case is distinguishable from First Pay, Inc. Here, Guerbet failed

to appear at the judgment pro confesso hearing, but its answers to the interrogatories

were filed in the record prior to the pro confesso hearing. Furthermore, there was no

allegation that Tower misrepresented any information to the city court judge before

she rendered judgment. Therefore, there was no omission of material information in

the instant case. Since Guerbet failed to attend the pro confesso hearing, the city

court was unable to weigh the competing evidence, if any existed. Accordingly, we

cannot say that the city court' s judgment would lead to an absurd result.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 13: 3923( B) expressly states that the statute is not

meant to affect judgments rendered pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2413. Since

La. R.S. 13: 3923 is clear and unambiguous, see First Pay, Inc., 421 So. 3d at 947.

and having found that the city court' s judgment would not lead to an absurd result,

the October 30, 2024 pro confesso judgment rendered pursuant to La. Code Civ. P.

art. 2413 was not subject to being amended or vacated by the city court pursuant to
La. R.S. 13: 3923( A). See Tower Credit, Inc. v. Morris, 2024- 0269 ( La. App. 1st

Cir. 12/ 18/ 25), 2025 WL 3678016; see also First Pay, Inc. v. Guy, 2024- 1220 ( La.

13

App. 1st Cir. 12/ 17/ 25), 2025 WL 3650632. Accordingly, we affirm the city court' s

judgment denying Guerbet' s " Motion to Reopen the Garnishment and Motion to

Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against Guerbet, LLC" and dismissing all of

Guerbet' s claims.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we recall the rule to show case, maintain the appeal,

and affirm the October 30, 2024 judgment as amended by the October 7, 2025

judgment denying Guerbet, LLC' s " Motion to Reopen the Garnishment and Motion

to Vacate the Garnishment Judgment against Guerbet, LLC" and dismissing all of

Guerbet' s claims. Costs of the appeal are assessed to Guerbet, LLC.

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE RECALLED; APPEAL MAINTAINED;
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

14

STATE OF LOUISIANA TOWER CREDIT, INC.

COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS

FIRST CIRCUIT VERONICA F. PROFIT AND
MICHAEL T. LEE

2023 CA 0324

MILLER, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

It is clear from the interrogatory answers and affidavit that Guerbet, LLC (the

garnishee")
never employed the judgment debtor nor possessed any property of the

judgment debtor. Guerbet, LLC unequivocally answered " NO" to all of the relevant

interrogatories and further supplemented its interrogatory responses with an

affidavit, which offered an explanation as to how an incorrect phone listing may

have been the source of Tower Credit' s misguided pursuit. Tower Credit offered no

contradictory evidence in traversal at the hearing. Thus, any attempt to characterize

the garnishee' s interrogatory answers as " conditioned" or " qualified"
grossly

misconstrues the pleadings.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has recently emphasized that the statutory
scheme for wage garnishment " is not meant to provide a basis for a judgment in

favor of judgment creditors against employers who may be tardy, but nonetheless

establish that they hold no property due the creditor.... ` If the law were otherwise,

garnishees could be, and would often be, mulcted for the benefit of persons to whom

they are due nothing."' First Pay, Inc. v. Dukes, 2024- 01565 ( La. 10/ 24/ 25), 421

So. 3d 9429 948 (" First Pay"), citing Tower Credit Inc. v. McGee, 2023- 0787 ( La.

App. lst Cir. 9/ 6/ 24), 405 So. 3d 612, 618, writ denied sub nom., TKTMJ, Inc. v.

Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 2024- 00660 ( La. 10/ 23/ 24), 394 So. 3d

1287, and writ denied, 2024- 01392 ( La. 1/ 28/ 25), 399 So. 3d 418, quoting Tower

1

Credit, Inc. v. Williams, 2022- 0106 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 16/ 22), 352 So. 3d 10291

1437, writrg anted, judgment vacated in part, 2022- 01556 ( La. 2/ 7/ 23), 354 So. 3d

659, Chutz, J., dissenting. See also First Pay v. Dukes, 2023- 1272 ( La. App. 1st Cir.

11/ 20/ 24), 405 So. 3d 1066, 1078, Miller and Stromberg, J.J., dissenting, citing

Tower Credit v. McGee, 2023- 0787 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 6/ 24), 405 So. 3d 612, 618

T] he goal of a garnishment proceeding is to seize a debtor' s property in the hands

of a third -party employer - not to force Louisiana employers/ garnishees to turn over

property they do not possess, nor to make employers/ garnishees the guarantors of

their employees' debt.").

Here, in spite of these admonitions and instruction, the majority sanctions a

result forcing a random unsuspecting business to turn over property it does not

possess on behalf of a third -party debtor that it has never employed.' While the

judgment against Guerbet, LLC provides a formula to calculate the amount allegedly
due, it does not reflect a sum certain. However, the unsworn affidavit of sums due

filed with the garnishment indicates that $25, 806. 65 was due as of October 4, 2023,

and that interest, attorney' s fees, and costs continue to accrue today.

In the instant case, as was the case in First Pay, the garnishee forwarded

answers to Tower Credit' s attorney before the hearing. See First Pay, Inc., 421 So.

3d at 944. Unlike in First Pte, the answers were further filed into the record. In an

In addressing this similar factual situation in First Pay, the Supreme Court noted:

What began as a small debt owed by Mr. Dukes has resulted in a judgment against
Quantix in excess of $ 100, 000, with interest still accruing. This has occurred
notwithstanding Quantix' s consistent denial of any relationship with Mr. Dukes at
all. Upon reopening of the proceedings, if Quantix disproves the codal prima facie
presumption and bears its burden to prove that it was never Mr. Dukes' employer,
was never indebted to him, and was never responsible for any of his debts, then
Quantix should not owe this judgment. Significant to our decision, Mr. Bankston is
both a counsel of record and the underlying judgment creditor. Under these unique
facts, Quantix should be given its day in court to prove Mr. Dukes was not its
employee.

First Pay, Inc., 421 So. 3d at 948- 949.

N

attempt to distinguish the facts before us from those in First Pay, the majority

wrongly characterizes the interrogatory answers as somehow inadequate. This

interpretive error serves to enable a budding cottage industry for manufacturing
judgments pro con, that seems to have developed to the detriment of our

business community.

Unlike an ordinary default judgment, which is confirmed through the

application of rigid, defined rules of procedure and evidence, see La. C. C. P. arts.

1702, et seq., 1002, 1843, 2002, 3205, 4904, 4921, 284, a judgment pro confesso is

won simply by a mere unsubstantiated allegation, as demonstrated here. In my view,

denying the maligned garnishee the opportunity to reopen the garnishment

proceedings under these circumstances is absurd.