Wells Fargo Financial Louisiana, Inc. Versus Zoie Breaux Bordelon A/K/A Zoie B, Bordelon A/K/A Zoie Bordelon, Ernest Bordelon, Jr., Donald W. Bordelon A/K/A Donald Bordelon and Geraldine A. Bordelon A/K/A Geraldine Bordelon

WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LOUISIANA, NO. 21-CA-80
INC.
FIFTH CIRCUIT
VERSUS
COURT OF APPEAL
ZOIE BREAUX BORDELON A/K/A ZOIE B,
BORDELON A/K/A ZOIE BORDELON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
ERNEST BORDELON, JR., DONALD W.
BORDELON A/K/A DONALD BORDELON
AND GERALDINE A. BORDELON A/K/A
GERALDINE BORDELON

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 757-924, DIVISION "H"
HONORABLE GLENN B. ANSARDI, JUDGE PRESIDING

December 22, 2021

MARC E. JOHNSON
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

REVERSED
MEJ
FHW
JJM

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
DONALD W. BORDELON
In Proper Person

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LOUISIANA, LLC
Christopher D. Meyer

JOHNSON, J.

Appellant, Donald W. Bordelon, pro se defendant in the foreclosure action

that is the subject of this appeal, seeks review of the 24th Judicial District Court’s

January 27, 2020 judgment1 in favor of Appellee, Wells Fargo Financial Louisiana

(“WFLA”) for $63,140.32, plus attorney’s fees, costs and interests. For the

following reasons, we vacate the November 10, 2021 judgment2 and remand the

matter for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 16, 2016, WFLA filed a “Petition to Enforce Promissory Note

with Recognition of Mortgage” as an ordinary proceeding and prayed for judgment

against Ernest and Zoie Breaux Bordelon and Donald and Geraldine Bordelon for

$63,140.32--the alleged unpaid principal balance on the note--together with

12.96% annual interest, reasonable attorney’s fees actually incurred by Plaintiff,

and “any other applicable amounts provided for by the Act of Mortgage and

applicable law.” On March 9, 2000, Zoie and Ernest Bordelon, Donald Bordelon’s

parents, executed a multiple indebtedness mortgage for up to $150,000 in favor of

Norwest Financial America, Inc.3, Wells Fargo Financial Louisiana’s (“WFLA”)

predecessor-in-interest, with the property located at 733 Blanche Street in Metairie.

That same day, Donald, Geraldine, Zoie, and Ernest signed a Note and Security

Agreement borrowing a principal amount of $22,209.61 from Norwest Financial

1
Mr. Bordelon requested review of the January 27, 2020 judgment, arguing that the court’s subsequent
February 20, 2020 judgment was an absolute nullity. Upon initial review of the record, this Court
discovered the February 20, 2020 Amended Judgment did not comply with the decretal language
requirements and, therefore, did not constitute a valid, final judgment necessary to confer appellate
jurisdiction. We then invoked our supervisory jurisdiction and ordered the trial court to amend the
February 20, 2020 judgment. A newly elected judge, different from the one who previously heard the
matter, issued another amended judgment upon receiving orders from this Court to do so on June 4, 2021.
2
The January 27, 2020 judgment lacked decretal language, the matter was remanded, and the district
court amended the judgment a third time. We will refer to the amended judgment as the November 10,
2021 judgment.
3
According to Mr. Bordelon, Norwest Financial America changed its name to Wells Fargo Financial
America and the Multiple Indebtedness Mortgage was assigned to Wells Fargo Financial America on
December 18, 2000. On October 15, 2015, the mortgage was assigned to WFLA.

21-CA-80 1

America, Inc.. WFLA alleged the defendants defaulted on the note and mortgage

by failing to pay the monthly installments as due and remained in default after

WFLA declared and accelerated “the entire principal sum, interest, attorney’s fees,

etc. due and payable” as permitted by the alleged Fixed Rate Note “made and

executed by Donald and Geraldine Bordelon” for $72,354.00 on March 6, 2003.

Attached to the petition was a lost note affidavit executed on January 11, 2016, and

an Act of Mortgage, which had been recorded in Jefferson Parish in 2000. Upon

learning of the deaths of Ernest Bordelon and Zoie Bordelon in 2005 and 2010,

respectively, WFLA filed an amended petition on April 26, 2016, naming the

unopened succession of Ernest Bordelon, Jr. and the unopened succession of Zoie

Breaux Bordelon a/k/a Zoie B. Bordelon a/k/a Zoie Bordelon as additional

defendants and requesting that a curator ad hoc be appointed.

WFLA filed Motion for Summary Judgment on January 27, 2017, requesting

an in rem judgment against defendants. WFLA averred that they are the owners of

the note executed in 2000 payable to the order of Norwest Financial America, Inc.

and secured by the mortgage over the property located at 733 Blanche Street in

Metairie and defendants failed to pay the November 11, 2010 installment payment

when it was due and have remained in default under the terms of the Note. WFLA

stated that there were no genuine issues of material fact, and it was legally entitled

to the requested in rem judgment in the amounts past due.

Donald W. Bordelon, representing himself pro se, filed an answer to the

motion for summary judgment and a cross motion for summary judgment on

March 23, 2017. Donald argued that no mortgage was ever filed validating the

2003 “lost note” which was the subject of the lawsuit. He also claimed that the

2000 loan had been paid off in 2003 and challenged WFLA’s claim that the 2003

Note was secured by the 2000 mortgage. He explained that the multiple

indebtedness mortgage signed by his parents was assigned to Wells Fargo

21-CA-80 2

Financial America, Inc. on December 18, 2000, and then assigned to WFLA on

October 15, 2003.

Mr. Bordelon averred that he paid off the 2000 Note in 2003, and that the

affidavit attached to the original petition claimed, incorrectly, that the 2000

mortgage secured the 2003 loan. He further averred that the affidavit attached to

WFLA’s motion for summary judgment alleged that he owned $115,140.00

(versus the $63,140.32 prayed for), does not specify which note he defaulted on

and when, and that the loan was subject to interest “at variable rates” but all the

prior communication referred to “fixed interest rates.”

WFLA filed a motion to reset the hearing on its motion for summary

judgment on February 1, 2018. Mr. Bordelon re-filed his answer and affidavit in

response and a curator was appointed for the unopened successions and his ex-

wife. WFLA filed an amending and supplemental petition on April 10, 2018

stating that the promissory note it is seeking to enforce was executed in 2003.

WFLA also requested that all references to a fixed rate note be removed from its

Petition and that the mortgage referenced in its original petition was a multiple

indebtedness mortgage which secured future advances. Mr. Bordelon answered

that WFLA failed to attach a copy of the 2003 Note, as required by La. C.C.P. arts.

2635(A)(2) and 2636, and asked that WFLA’s original and amended petitions be

denied.

Mr. Bordelon filed suit in federal court alleging that WFLA’s attorney

violated federal laws. After the parties settled the federal suit on December 21,

2018, Mr. Bordelon subsequently filed a motion on February 22, 2019 to amend

his cross-motion for summary judgment and add counter-claims of malicious

prosecution and a LUPTA violation. In response to a request for admissions filed

in the federal case, WFLA admitted that they did not have a Note executed in 2003

in their possession, or copies of cancelled checks from Donald W. Bordelon

21-CA-80 3

indicating there were payments on the purported 2003 mortgage loan for his home

on 733 Blanche Street in Metairie, but maintained that the 2003 Note was secured

by the 2000 Multiple Indebtedness Mortgage.

In response, WFLA filed a Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata on June

14, 2019 asking the court to dismiss Mr. Bordelon’s latest claims. In the

memorandum in support of the exception, WFLA explained that the malicious

prosecution claims and LUPTA claims were barred by the parties’ Settlement

Agreement and Release of All Claims in the federal case. A hearing was held on

the exception on August 20, 2019. The exception was granted, and the counter-

claims of Mr. Bordelon were dismissed with prejudice on October 10, 2019.

In an addendum to WFLA’s motion for summary judgment filed November

12, 2019, WFLA averred that Defendants were sent a demand letter on February 1,

2012, which informed them that they had until March 6, 2012 to bring the loan

current or the note would be accelerated at that time. Because the note was

accelerated on March 6, 2012, WFLA argued that its foreclosure action had not

prescribed and reiterated its demand for in rem judgment in its favor. Mr.

Bordelon replied that the letter threatened to accelerate a non-existent note and

that, even if the note had been accelerated on March 6, 2012, pursuant to La.

C.C.P. art. 561, the executory process action would have been abandoned on

March 5, 2015.

At the hearing on the motions for summary judgment held November 13,

2019, the district court found that the addendum to the motion for summary

judgment WFLA, filed the day before, raised new issues of material fact. The

district court found it was “precluded from granting either one of your summary

judgments” and the matter was set for trial on January 27, 2020.

At trial, Kathleen S. Anderson, a loan verification consultant, testified about

a lost note affidavit written by a Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vice president of loan

21-CA-80 4

documentation. Ms. Anderson advised the court that lost note affidavits are

created when the prior servicer lost the note, or if there was a change in systems.

WFLA introduced into evidence the lost note affidavit along with the multiple

indebtedness mortgage and the original 2000 Note. The court also admitted the

payment history, which Ms. Anderson explained showed how the original balance

of $22,209.61 was satisfied via a “no cash payoff because they requested more

money.” She also testified that there was a loan taken out on July 7, 2003 for

$72,354.90 and that there were requests for loss mitigation on that loan. The court

also accepted into evidence two letters from Mr. Bordelon, which read in part, “It

is my full intention to pay what I owe but at this time I have exhausted all of our

income and resources, so we are turning to you for help,” requesting loan

modification, and the two response letters from WFLA. On cross-examination,

Ms. Anderson stated that she had worked for the company since October of 2007,

and went into greater detail about the search for a lost note that takes place before

executing a lost note affidavit. Ms. Anderson testified that WFLA believed that

there was a lost note in this case based on the payments made by the Bordelons,

according to their system.

Mr. Bordelon asserted that an action based on an acceleration of a loan

prescribes in three years and the first time the demand letter was mentioned during

the case was November 2019. He also implied that the payments were not proof

that the 2003 Note existed, “the fact that my mother and father, being really old

and just paying bills that they don’t know if they got it or they don’t before they

were deceased.” On cross-examination, Mr. Bordelon acknowledged that he sent

the letters requesting loan modification within five years of the filing of WFLA’s

lawsuit. He testified that he never received the money the payment history showed

as being disbursed on July 7, 2003 and he had no explanation as to where the

21-CA-80 5

money went. He said the letters he sent in 2014 and 2016 were generalized letters

he received through the modification company.

In closing arguments, WFLA argued that Mr. Bordelon’s letters interrupted

prescription by acknowledgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. art 3464. Also, La. C.C.

art. 3498 provides prescription tolls from the date the acceleration is due. WFLA

also prayed for reasonable attorney’s fees and apologized about the 2003 Note

being lost, but asserted that they followed the procedure in La. R.S. 9:5168(B) to

create the lost note affidavit. WFLA concluded by asking the court to

acknowledge that money was borrowed and secured by a mortgage, and requested

the amount they were owed by law via an in rem judgment.

Mr. Bordelon closed by restating that his parents were old and “[b]asically

they’d get bills and they’d pay them.” He stated that mediation was the quickest

resolution to the pending foreclosure “until [he] actually figured out what was

what” and discovered that there was “no loan taken out, []no note, no mortgage [ . .

.] no mortgage for the house even in the clerk of court’s office [ . . .] so I don’t

know where any of this comes from.” Mr. Bordelon concluded by stating that

WFLA has never been able to show him paperwork that proved he actually owed

them money.

The district court summarized that the case was based on a petition to

enforce a promissory note. After a bench trial, the court found that there was a

mortgage that established a $150,000.00 line of credit; the initial note of

$22,209.00 was executed as the same time as the mortgage; the mortgage

instrument allowed more than one note to be secured by the mortgage; the second

draw of $72,354.00, also secured by the 2000 mortgage, paid off the 2000 Note;

the two original makers are now deceased; the Bordelons requested “forbearance

and rewrite because of difficulties”; the last payment on the note was made in

2010; the default notice was sent in 2014; and there were loan modifications in

21-CA-80 6

2014. The district court concluded that there was an interruption of prescription

and found for WFLA “as requested in the amount of $63,140.00 plus 12 percent

from date of last payment.” In its January 27, 2020 judgment, accompanied by

reasons for judgment, the district court also awarded WFLA $5,000.00 in attorney

fees and assessed each party for their own costs.

Mr. Bordelon then filed a motion for new trial on February 7, 2020. The

district court subsequently issued an amended judgment and reasons for amended

judgment on February 20, 2020. On September 30, 2020, the district court heard

the motion for new trial.4 Mr. Bordelon’s motion for new trial was denied. In the

subsequent October 27, 2020 written judgment, the district court ordered “the

(February 20, 2020) Amended Judgment and Amended Reasons for Judgment

previously entered in this matter shall remain undisturbed.” Appellant then filed

the instant appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Mr. Bordelon alleges the trial court erred when it : 1) determined that the
2003 Note existed; 2) allowed the lost note affidavit to be used to obtain judgment
against his parents’ successions more than a year after their death; 3) ignored
evidence of an insurance policy which should have paid off the debt; 4) held that
prescription was interrupted by Mr. Bordelon’s 2014 and 2016 letters requesting
loan modification; 5) accepted the testimony of Kathleen S. Anderson “even
though she was ‘testifying’ about records from an outside vendor she apparently
had never seen before; and 6) issued an amended judgment “making a material
change (added new persons obliged to pay the debt) without conducting a hearing.”

LAW AND DISCUSSION

First, we address assignment of error six. There were two judgments

rendered by the trial court prior to the lodging of this appeal, and neither judgment

is sufficient to invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Both the January 27, 2020

and February 20, 2020 judgments were deficient because they did not contain the

4
Mr. Bordelon argued in his memorandum in support of his motion for new trial that the February 20,
2020 judgment was an absolute nullity because substantive changes were made to the judgment without a
hearing or the agreement of both parties. However, neither party, nor the district court addressed that
issue at the hearing on the motion.

21-CA-80 7

necessary decretal language and the relief granted could not be determined from a

review of the judgments alone.

The February 20, 2020 judgment was not a valid, appealable judgment for

two additional reasons. First, in addition to lacking decretal language, the February

2020 judgment, issued by the former judge in Division “H,” also stated, in error,

that the district court held a hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment on

January 27, 2020, instead of a trial on the merits. A thorough review of the record

reflects that a trial on the merits—and not a hearing on summary judgment

motions—took place on January 27, 2020. The district court dismissed the cross

motions for summary judgment on November 13, 2019 and the motions for

summary judgment were not re-urged, or new motions for summary judgment filed

before the January 27, 2020 trial. Moreover, as a result of this Court’s oversight in

reviewing only the most recent February 20, 2020 judgment and ordering

amendment of the same prior to the docketing of this appeal on May 5, 2021, the

district court’s June 4, 2021 judgment propagated the error. Consequently, the

June 4, 2021 judgment is also not a valid, appealable judgment. In this Court’s

October 29, 2021 order, we vacated the February 20, 2020 and June 4, 2021

judgments.

If appealed, a final judgment that does not contain the appropriate decretal

language shall be remanded to the trial court, which shall amend the judgment in

accordance with Article 1951 within the time set by the appellate court. La. C.C.P.

art. 1918(A). Because the remaining January 27, 2020 judgment was also not a

valid, final, appealable judgment, on October 29, 2021 we also remanded this

matter and ordered the trial court to amend the January 27, 2020 judgment,

pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 2088(A)(4) and 2132, to reflect the relief granted

following trial on the merits. See Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785 (La. 5/20/03); 846

So.2d 692, 695. To sum, Mr. Bordelon’s sixth assignment of error has merit, and

21-CA-80 8

has been addressed. The resulting November 10, 2021 judgment is a valid, final

judgment upon which we are able to exercise our appellate jurisdiction and

consider the merits of the case.

Upon our review of the record, we find that WFLA failed to prove

compliance with the statutory requirements set forth in La. R.S. 13:3741—required

to prove the existence and subsequent enforcement of a lost note—and that the

district court erred in failing to consider same. For the following reasons, we find

that WFLA failed to introduce sufficient evidence to support its action, and we

reverse the district court’s November 2021 judgment.

A court of appeal may not overturn a judgment of a trial court absent an

error of law or a factual finding that was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.

N & F Logistic, Inc. v. Cathay Inn Int'l, Inc., 14-835 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/15/15); 170

So.3d 275, 277, citing Stobart v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617

So.2d 880, 882, n. 2 (La. 1993).

An appellate court must render judgment upon the record on appeal. La.

C.C.P. art. 2164; Boes Iron Works, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 05-

782 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/28/06); 927 So.2d 553, 556. The record on appeal is that

which is sent by the trial court to the appellate court and includes the pleadings,

court minutes, transcript, jury instructions, judgments and other rulings, unless

otherwise designated. Id.; La. C.C.P. arts. 2127 and 2128. “Evidence not properly

and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically

placed in the record. Documents attached to memoranda do not constitute evidence

and cannot be considered as such on appeal.” Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Servs., Inc.,

07-2143, p. 6 (La. 5/21/08); 983 So.2d 84, 88–89. Statements in appellate briefs

are not evidence. McKoin Starter & Generator, Inc. v. Snap-On Credit Corp.,

37,210 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/25/03); 850 So.2d 924, 927, writ denied, 03-2605 (La.

12/12/03); 860 So.2d 1156. As a court of record, we must limit our review to

21-CA-80 9

evidence in the record before us. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Custer, supra at 305. An

appellate court cannot review evidence that is not in the record on appeal and

cannot receive new evidence. Id.

Our review of the record indicates that WFLA improperly relied on La. R.S.

9:5168 to establish the existence of the lost 2003 Note for purposes of enforcing

the obligation memorialized by the lost note. La. R.S. 9:5168 outlines the

procedure to prove by affidavit the existence of a promissory note that has been

lost or destroyed, but paid, forgiven, or otherwise satisfied. The existence of a lost

promissory note containing obligations a party wishes to enforce must be

established pursuant to La. R.S. 13:3740 and 13:3741.

La.R.S. 13:3740 provides for proof of the contents of a lost negotiable

instrument, stating in pertinent part:

When an instrument in writing, containing obligations
which the party wishes to enforce, has been lost or destroyed,
by accident or force, evidence may be given of its contents,
provided the party show the loss, either by direct testimony, or
by such circumstances, supported by the oath of the party, as
render the loss probable;....

In such cases, La.R.S. 13:3741 requires that the loss of the note be advertised. It

provides, in pertinent part:

In every case where a lost instrument is made the
foundation of a suit or defense, it must appear that the loss has
been advertised within a reasonable time in a public newspaper
and proper means taken to recover the possession of the
instrument;....

This statute also allows the plaintiff to post security in lieu of such advertisement.

U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Custer, 09-802 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/9/10); 33 So.3d 303, 305.

In a foreclosure proceeding by ordinary process, the general
rules applicable to ordinary lawsuits are followed. In the instant case,
which is a foreclosure by ordinary process, the promissory note that is
secured by the mortgage is not required to be introduced into evidence
if the requirements of La. R.S. 13:3741 are met.

Norwest Bank v. Walker, 05-1068 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/24/06); 933 So.2d 222, 225.

21-CA-80 10

Our review of the record indicates that WFLA did not meet the requirements

of La. R.S. 13:3741. Although the record contains documents purporting to show

that WLFA advertised for the lost note, those documents were not properly

introduced at trial. Evidence, although attached to a motion or filed into the

record, could not be considered by the court unless properly admitted at trial. See

First Bank & Tr. v. Proctor's Cove II, LLC, 13-802 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/24/14); 150

So.3d 418, 424, writ denied, 14-2236 (La. 1/9/15); 157 So.3d 1110. Accordingly,

at trial, WLFA failed to introduce any evidence to show that it advertised the lost

note in compliance with La. R.S. 13:3741. Further, there is no evidence in the

record that WFLA posted a surety bond instead of advertising. WFLA’s sole

witness also did not testify at trial that WFLA advertised for the lost note within a

reasonable time, or posted security in lieu of advertisement. See U.S. Bank Nat.

Ass'n v. Custer, supra at 305-06.

Because WFLA did not present sufficient proof of the 2003 Note’s existence

at trial, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. Moreover, because we find that Mr.

Bordelon’s first assignment of error has merit and that WFLA failed to prove the

existence of the alleged lost note on which its action is based, we pretermit further

discussion of Mr. Bordelon’s now moot remaining assignments of error, except to

emphasize that we cannot consider arguments not timely and properly presented to

the trial court first.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we find WFLA did not prove the existence of the

2003 Note it seeks to enforce against defendants. Accordingly, the November 10,

2021 judgment of the trial court is reversed.

REVERSED

21-CA-80 11

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
DECEMBER 22, 2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-CA-80
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE GLENN B. ANSARDI (DISTRICT JUDGE)
RONNIE J. BERTHELOT (APPELLEE) CHRISTOPHER D. MEYER (APPELLEE)

MAILED
JEFFREY D. MARTINY (APPELLEE) DONALD W. BORDELON (APPELLANT) COREY J. GIROIR (APPELLEE)
ATTORNEY AT LAW 733 BLANCHE STREET HAROLD CRADIC III (APPELLEE)
131 AIRLINE DRIVE METAIRIE, LA 70003 HERSCHEL C. ADCOCK, JR. (APPELLEE)
SUITE 201 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
METAIRIE, LA 70001 POST OFFICE BOX 87379
BATON ROUGE, LA 70879