Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Scott v. Bank of Coushatta, 512 So. 2d 356.

42 citing documents.

Emile, Michele, Brittany and Cecilia Chacon Versus Regal Remodelers, L.L.C., Tanweer Bhatti, Aix Specialty Insurance Company, State Farm … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
Whitney Bank, 236 So.3d at 784, (La.
Walter George And Janie George v. Progressive Waste La. 2022
The extinction of an obligation may also result from acts of the creditor which, under the factual circumstances in question, evidence intent to release the debtor.” (La.
Van Robin and Oyster Fisheries, Inc. v. Courtney Creighton-Smith La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
Estate of George Salicos v. Trevor Wyatt Richard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
the supreme court explained the various ways to extinguish obligations: A civilian obligation may be extinguished by payment, La.Civ.Code Ann. Art. 1854 (West 1987), novation, [La.Civ.Code] art. 1879, or remission, [La.Civ.Code] art. 1888.
AG Resource Management, LLC. and Agrifund, LLC v. Bunge North America, Inc. and Danny Allen Dickerson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
It argued that any time “a debtor contracts a new debt to his creditor, which new debt is substituted for an old one, which is extinguished, novation occurs,” (La.
Agrifund, LLC v. Radar Ridge Planting Co., Inc. and Thomas A. Dickerson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
Whitney Bank v. Garden Gate New Orleans, L.L.C. 236 So. 3d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Scott v. Bank of Coushatta , , 361 (La.
White v. York Risk Services Group, Inc. 156 So. 3d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 1949; (“Unilateral error does not vitiate consent if the reason for the error was the complaining party’s inexcusable neglect in discovery of the error.”).
Barham v. St. Mary Land & Exploration Co. 129 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co. 144 So. 3d 791 La. 2013
From this dichotomy has evolved the concept of contractual negligence as a defense to a claim for unilateral error, -63 (La.1987): Louisiana jurisprudence is sprinkled with cases which deny relief to parties who claim an agreement should be invalidated because of unilateral error which is caused, in large part, by the complaining party’s inexcusable ignorance, neglect, or want of care.
French's Welding & Maintenance Service, L.L.C. v. Harris Builders, L.L.C. 106 So. 3d 716 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Error can ‘invalidate a contract if it is related to the princip[al] cause, or motive, for making the agreement’ [ ] and is ‘known or should have been known to the other party.’ [Hidalgo v. Julian, 98-83, p. 7 (La.App.
Weinmann v. Duhon 997 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Arnold v. Hancock 950 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Roger R. Arnold v. Donald S. Hancock La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Even the factually dissimilar and non-analogous cases cited by Mr. Hancock to support his argument for novation, provide that, “[t]he most important factor in determining whether a novation has been effected is the intent of the parties.”
Julie Simon Albarado v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
the supreme court explained that a novation occurs when a new obligation is substituted for an existing obligation which, in effect, extinguishes the prior obligation, citing La.Civ.Code art. 1879.
Albarado v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. 926 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
the supreme court explained that a novation occurs when a new obligation is substituted for an existing obligation which, in effect, extinguishes the prior obligation, citing La.Civ.Code art. 1879.
Levine v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce 917 So. 2d 1235 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the act of collecting loans is inherent in the bank's power to lend money and thus is an action subject to the jurisdiction of the commissioner of financial institutions thereby exempting the Bank from LUTPA.
Roland J. Abshire v. Belmont Homes, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Error can ‘invalidate a contract if it is related to the princip[al] cause, or motive, for making the agreement’ [] and is ‘known or should have been known to the other party.’ [Hidalgo v. Julian, 98-83, p. 7 (La.App.
Abshire v. Belmont Homes, Inc. 896 So. 2d 277 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Error can `invalidate a contract if it is related to the princip[al] cause, or motive, for making the agreement' [ ] and is `known or should have been known to the other party.'
Rodriguez v. Ed's Mobile Homes 889 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Jason M. Rodriguez and Misty M. Rodriguez v. Ed's Mobile Homes of Bossier City, Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Ricky Lagrange v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Furthermore, the intent of the parties is the most important factor in deciding whether a novation has occurred, and summary judgment is usually not appropriate in cases requiring judicial determination of subjective facts, such as motive, intent, good faith, or knowledge.
Lagrange v. Dynamic Industries, Inc. 875 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Furthermore, the intent of the parties is the most important factor in deciding whether a no-vation has occurred, and summary judgment is usually not appropriate in cases requiring judicial determination of subjective facts, such as motive, intent, good faith, or knowledge.
Nguyen v. Tran 841 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
MOBILE EXPLORATION v. Certain Underwriters 837 So. 2d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
The two parties find one case for guidance to the Louisiana law on this issue
Samia Companies v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 789 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
(error due to inexcusable neglect not sufficient to invalidate consent); Massachusetts Indem.
Badalamenti v. Jefferson Guar. Bank 759 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
Durand v. Board of Trustee's of the Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund 704 So. 2d 12 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
deGravelles, 94-0819 at p. 4; 652 So.2d at 649 .
Lowry v. Mills 682 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace 661 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
6:1124 by Louisiana courts to "impose tort liability against banks that have violated clear fiduciary duties to their customers," (La.
LeBlanc v. Faul 659 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
However, has reaffirmed its prior holding in Wikoff v. Townsend, 7 Mart, (o.s.)
Degravelles v. Hampton 652 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Massachusetts Indemnity & Life Ins.
Smith v. Remodeling Service, Inc. 648 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
MASS. INDEM. & LIFE INS. v. Humphreys 644 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Schillace v. Channell Shopping Partnership 623 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
FIRST NAT. BANK OF ABBEVILLE v. Greene 612 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Preferred Inv. Corp. v. Neucere 592 So. 2d 889 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State Bank of Commerce v. Demco of La., Inc., (La.
Woods v. Morgan City Lions Club 588 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
and cases cited therein.
Adler v. Parkerson 581 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
They particularly argue that a simple telephone call to Abry Brothers by the Parkersons would have disclosed the error, and their failure to do so precludes them from urging this error as grounds for rescission, (La.
Causeway Equipment, Inc. v. Bell 579 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
and stated therein: Defined simply, in the 1984 revisions to our Civil Code, a novation consists of the extinguishment of an existing obligation by the substitution of a new one.
Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. v. Hammons 540 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that monitoring and collecting a loan are powers incidental to a state bank's express power to loan money and therefore constitute actions subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions.
Davis v. Rubenstein 535 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988