Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Buckner v. Carmack, 272 So. 2d 326.

27 citing documents.

U. S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of the Igloo Series III Trust v. John Timothy Duane … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
“[Executory process’s] procedural bases are the debtor’s confession of judgment before a notary public and two witnesses; supporting authentic evidence; and a determination by a judge that the submissions are adequate for the seizure and sale of the encumbered property to satisfy the debt.”
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Whitney Blaine Smith, Et Ux. 180 So. 3d 1238 La. 2015
the seizure provisions which resulted in an unconstitutional seizure of her property.4 4 At page ten of her brief, Ms. Smith asserts she “can allege a misuse or abuse of a seizure statute and refrain from challenging the constitutionality of that statute without pleading herself out of court.” 9 (La.
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Whitney Blaine Smith, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
.” As we noted in Mellon, 71 So.3d at 1042: Louisiana’s
Bank of New York Mellon v. Smith 159 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
le 2631 provides that Executory Proceedings “are those which are used to effect the seizure and sale of property, without previous citation and judgment, to enforce a mortgage or privilege thereon evidenced by an authentic act importing a confession of judgment, ...” As we noted in Mellon, 71 So.3d at 1042 : Louisiana’s
Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Co. v. Warren 125 So. 3d 1211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 2635(A); Whit *1217 ney Nat’l Bank v. Blueridge, Inc., (La.App.
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. America v. Ochoa 120 So. 3d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the statutes relating to executory process are constitutional, notwithstanding the contention that they work a deprivation of property without due process of law by denying the right to the opportunity to be heard before authorizing the seizure of property.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v. Smith 71 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Stewart v. Williams 572 So. 2d 1085 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
First Guar. Bk. v. Baton Rouge Petroleum Center, Inc. 529 So. 2d 834 La. 1988
Hood Motor Co., appeal dismissed, 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct.
New Iberia National Bank v. Staton 525 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
The constitutionality of Louisiana’s appeal dismissed, 417 U.S. 901 , 94 S.Ct.
France v. American Bank 505 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987
Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Carr 498 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Dixie Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Pitre 498 So. 2d 112 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
In rejecting these *114 contentions the trial judge, in his reasons for judgment, said: "The law in Louisiana in regards to executory process cases, namely, Code of Civil Procedure Articles 2638 and 2639 [La.1973].
FIRST FEDERAL SAV. AND LOAN ASS'N v. Blake 465 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Thornton v. Heritage Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n 459 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
where executory process was considered.
Kavanaugh v. Berkett 407 So. 2d 645 La. 1981
this Court upheld the constitutionality of the Louisiana scheme of executory process.
LOUISIANA BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. Pernici 372 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
See Hood Motor Company, McMahon, The History of the Development of Executory Procedure in Louisiana, 32 Tul.L.
Tri-South Mortgage Investors v. New Communities, Inc. 353 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
ERROR NO. 9 we find no error.
Cameron Brown South, Inc. v. East Glen Oaks, Inc. 341 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
2635, 2638; American Bank and Trust Co. in Monroe v. Carson Homes, Inc., supra 316 So.2d at 734 .
Hood Motor Company, Inc. v. Lawrence 320 So. 2d 111 La. 1975
McMahon, The Historical Development of Executory Procedure in Louisiana, 32 Tul.L.Rev.
American Bank & Trust Co. v. Carson Homes, Inc. 316 So. 2d 732 La. 1975
Art. 2753; Buckner v. Carmack, La., (1973).
Hood Motor Co. v. Lawrence 307 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
1983 , 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972), as these statutes were specifically upheld by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Buckner v. Carmack, La., (1973), we do find that, in this particular case, the procedures used by appellee to seize and sell this particular vehicle was a denial of due process rights of appellant under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Breaux 293 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Reed v. Meaux 292 So. 2d 557 La. 1974
This Court, (1973) has held that our statutes relating to executory process are constitutional and sales thereunder are not invalidated by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Fuentes, supra.
McLendon v. Brewster 286 So. 2d 513 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
That decision has been reviewed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Buckner v. Carmack, La., (1973), in which the constitutionality of Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 326, 2293, 2331, 2631, 2635, 2638, 2639, 2642, 2721, 2722, 2724, 2753, 3610 and form 1605 were challenged.
International Development, Inc. v. Utah-Louisiana Investment Co. 289 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
1983 , 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) (1973).
Louisiana National Bank of Baton Rouge v. Heroman 280 So. 2d 362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
In view of the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision of Buckner v. Carmack, La., (1973), this assault on executory process per se must fail.