DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite League Central Credit Union v. Montgomery, 207 So. 2d 762.

47 citing documents.

  • Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Parham 216 So. 3d 231 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    (1968); American Thrift & Fin.
  • AMERICAN THRIFT & FINAN. PLAN v. Richardson 977 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    (1968); Viley v. Wall, 154 La.
  • Succession of Voorhies v. Voorhies 853 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    (1968), where the supreme court, in the context of a chattel mortgage, accepted Wigmore’s definition of an attesting witness, quoting: "Who is the attesting witness.
  • Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Epps 708 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    (1968), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a defect in an executory proceeding precluded a subsequent suit for a deficiency judgment.
  • Williams v. Perkins-Siegen Partnership 623 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    (1968), our supreme court held that a fundamental defect in executory proceedings was a bar to a later action for a deficiency judgment.
  • Bank of Commerce and Trust Co. v. Landry 610 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    (1968), which held that procedural defects *931 in executory proceedings barred the creditor from pursuing a deficiency.
  • Allain v. First Guaranty Bank 577 So. 2d 1109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • Citicorp Acceptance Co. v. Gelpi 563 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    and its progeny held that technical defects, in a petition by the creditor, seeking use of executory process, would bar the creditor from obtaining a deficiency judgment against the debtor.
  • Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Slaughter 563 So. 2d 445 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    In First Guaranty Bank, Hammond, Louisiana v. Baton Rouge Petroleum Center, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court, on rehearing, , (1968), and set forth the requirements for deficiency judgment, as follows: To obtain a deficiency judgment, the creditor first must affirmatively plead and prove the existence of the obligation giving rise to the debt, La.C.C.
  • First Acadiana Bank v. Bieber 562 So. 2d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • Louisiana Ass'n for the Blind v. Robertson 552 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    which had held that a debtor could defend an action for deficiency judgment by asserting the alleged illegality of the executory proceeding caused by a lack of authentic evidence.
  • Bank of LaPlace v. Chapman 545 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    The First Guaranty Bank decision specifically overruled earlier jurisprudence, , (1968), which had allowed a debtor to defend a deficiency judgment suit by asserting that insufficient authentic evidence had been submitted in the executory process.
  • Commercial Nat. Bank v. Steele 542 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    (1968) in reaching its conclusion that the alleged defect precludes deficiency judgment is erroneous in light of the recent Supreme Court case of First Guaranty Bank v. Baton Rouge Petroleum, 529 So.
  • City Bank & Trust of Shreveport v. Evans 542 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    In First Guaranty Bank v. Baton Rouge Petroleum Center, Inc., (on rehearing), , (1968), which had held that a defect in the authentic evidence submitted in an executory process suit is a defense in a subsequent action for a deficiency judgment.
  • Bank of Coushatta v. King 540 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    Following our decision in this case, the Supreme Court, in First Guaranty Bank v. Baton Rouge Petroleum Center, Inc., supra, , (1968), which had held that a debtor could defend an action for deficiency judgment by asserting the nullity of the executory proceedings.
  • Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Savote 532 So. 2d 820 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    The Court in First Guaranty, supra, , (1968), expressly disavowed the practice of nullifying the deficiency judgment proceedings because the mortgagee failed to comply “with every jot and title as to the form of authentic evidence required in the executory proceeding.” The Court, at p. 843, gave the following rationale; The executory proce
  • First Guar. Bk. v. Baton Rouge Petroleum Center, Inc. 529 So. 2d 834 La. 1988
  • Nick's Auto Sales, Inc. v. Blakes 530 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    We make this determination based upon our supreme court's recent decision in First Guaranty Bank v. Baton Rouge Petroleum Center, Inc., (1988), , (1968).
  • Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Little Ford, Inc. 522 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    (1968), for the proposition that a debtor may attack a judicial sale after the sale is final.
  • PELICAN HOMESTEAD AND SAV. v. Winston 517 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
    (1968); Plumbing Supply House, supra .
  • Distinguished United Mercantile Bank v. Schwartz 513 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • Distinguished France v. American Bank 505 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
  • John Deere Co. v. Loewer 505 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    3rd Cir.1985); , (1968).
  • Mellon Financial Services Corp. v. Cassreino 499 So. 2d 1160 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
    Charles and Trust Company, supra that the lack of authentic evidence in the executory process constitutes a valid defense to a , (1968) (La.App.
  • Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Walker 488 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
  • Bank of St. Charles v. Eris 477 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • Intern. Harvester Credit Corp. v. Majors 467 So. 2d 1251 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Tullier 453 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
  • Plumbing Supply House v. Century Nat. Bank 440 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
  • Gulf National Bank at Lake Charles v. Ryan 432 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Jurisprudence has also established the rule that a deficiency judgment is prohibited where there is any fundamental defect in the proceedings, , (1968); Blaize, Civil Procedure— Deficiency Judgment After Invalid Exec-utory Process, 29 La.L.Rev.
  • Credithrift of America, Inc. v. Williams 426 So. 2d 339 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    the Supreme Court approved the rationale of Tapp and held no deficiency judgment could be obtained where there was no legal appraisal.
  • BANK OF ST. CHARLES, ETC. v. Great So. Coach 424 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1982
    (1968), Rehearing Denied, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated: [2] Our law stipulates the authentic evidence required in order to invoke executory proceedings.
  • First Guar. Bank v. Ratcliff 424 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
    (1968), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the executory proceeding was null due to the lack of authentic evidence, and that the subsequent deficiency judgment was null and void.
  • Ingram v. Reliable Finance Co., Inc. 410 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
    (1968); Blaize, Civil Procedure—Deficiency Judgment After Invalid Executory Process, 29 La.
  • Clark v. Selago Federal Credit Union 405 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1981
    13:4106-4107; , (1968); (La.App.
  • Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Stout 404 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
  • Ardoin v. Fontenot 374 So. 2d 1273 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    13:4106-4107; , (1968); (La.App.
  • Cameron Brown South, Inc. v. East Glen Oaks, Inc. 341 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Alison Mtg. Inv. Tr. v. COMMERCIAL LEAS & FIN. CO., INC. 334 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
    4 Cir. 1969); , (1968); (La.App.
  • Ford Motor Credit Company v. Soileau 323 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    Jurisprudence has also established the rule that a deficiency judgment is prohibited where there is any fundamental defect in the proceedings, , (1968); (La., S.Ct.
  • American Bank & Trust Co. v. Carson Homes, Inc. 316 So. 2d 732 La. 1975
    (1968), this Court stated: "Our law stipulates the authentic evidence required in order to invoke executory proceedings.
  • Reed v. Meaux 292 So. 2d 557 La. 1974
    [13] , (1968), Noted, 29 La.L.
  • Reed v. Meaux 262 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Associates Discount Corporation v. Bankston 246 So. 2d 335 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    [1] , (1968), cited by defendants-appellants is factually inapposite to the instant case for the reason that the instrument there in question was defective on its face as lacking the requisite witnesses and being acknowledged by the agent of the mortgagee.
  • Powell v. Carter 233 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
    *373 Admittedly, , decided by this court November 12, 1963, , , rendered by the Supreme Court February 12, 1968, do not per se deal with attacks on executory proceedings themselves.
  • Ford Motor Credit Company v. Herron 234 So. 2d 517 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
  • Ford Motor Credit Company v. Samec 227 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
    [2] , (1968) where a suit for deficiency judgment was dismissed, after sale of the property under executory process, because the mortgage sued on was "not in authentic form."