DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Aiavolasiti v. Versailles Gardens Land Development Co., 371 So. 2d 755.

16 citing documents.

  • IRL R. SILVERSTEIN, PLC. v. Juarez 740 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • Succession of Sherrouse 690 So. 2d 879 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    To support its claim, which involved a surety who sought to recover from the remaining co-sureties their share of the satisfied debt, plus interest as provided by the promissory note.
  • Morris v. Haas 659 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • Bank of Commerce and Trust Co. v. Landry 610 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
    4th Cir.1978), amended on other grounds, which holds that a debtor is precluded from challenging the qualifications of the appraisers after the judicial sale had taken place.
  • Azar v. Shilstone 607 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    Co., -60 (La.1979) is precedent for this case.
  • Sims v. Asian Intern., Ltd. 521 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Chaisson v. Daigle 499 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    and Daigle v. Chaisson, supra, the rules of suretyship are to be applied to accommodation indorsers to determine the rights between them.
  • Koeniger v. Lentz 487 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    this Court concluded that Koeniger could not be conventionally subrogated to the creditor bank’s right to recover the entire amount owed on the notes from any one of the co-sureties but that he could recover from each co-surety only his proportionate share of the entire amount paid.
  • Darby v. Doucet 482 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • FIRST FEDERAL SAV. & LOAN ASS'N v. Morrow 469 So. 2d 424 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
    4th Cir.1978), amended on other grounds
  • Koeniger v. Lentz 462 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    Co., holds that, in the absence of their "clearly expressing an intention to be bound as solidary obligors even among themselves," continuing guarantors occupy the position of sureties in their relations towards one another, and that when one guarantor "paid or otherwise discharged the debts," id.
  • Koeniger v. Lentz 450 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
    That partner is plaintiff in this proceeding against the other guarantor-partners, seeking to recover from each the entire amount or at least () their virile shares of the obligation all had guaranteed.
  • Livermore v. Schaefer 425 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
    Appellants mistakenly represent that this case is a virtual replay of Aiavolasiti v. Versailles Gardens Land Development Co., et aIs., (hereinafter “Aiavolasiti”).
  • Daigle v. Chaisson 396 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
    five stockholders of a corporation, including Aiavolasiti, executed a separate continuing guarantee binding themselves in solido with the corporation for the latter's debts.
  • Bourg v. Wiley 398 So. 2d 13 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • First Nat. Bank of Crowley v. Green Garden Processing Company, Inc. 387 So. 2d 1070 La. 1980
    Co., while the relationship of surety to creditor is governed by the principles applicable to solidary obligors when the sureties bind themselves in solido with the principal debtor, "[i]t is an oversimplification of the relationship between the principal debtor, .