Robert Kaltenbach v. Dianne Sue Nelson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-160

ROBERT KALTENBACH

VERSUS

DIANNE SUE NELSON

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 71200-A
HONORABLE J. LARRY VIDRINE, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, and
Elizabeth A. Pickett, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Robert Kaltenbach
In Proper Person
1334 Division Road
Arnaudville, LA 70512
(337) 280-6633
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Robert Kaltenbach

Alex D. Chapman, Jr.
801 W. Lincoln Road
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-2229
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Dianne Sue Nelson

COOKS, Judge.

In September of 2009, Conrad Nelson and his wife, Dianne Sue Nelson,

entered into negotiations with Robert Kaltenbach concerning the possible purchase

of a motor home. The title to the motor home was in the name of Mr. Kaltenbach’s

daughter, Gretchen Kaltenbach. The Nelsons test drove the vehicle. According to

Mr. Kaltenbach he then extended to the Nelsons a “10 day exclusive option to

purchase for consideration of $1,000.00.” The offer was apparently accepted and a

check in the amount of $1,000.00 was made out to Mr. Kaltenbach and signed by

Dianne Sue Nelson.

At some point during the ten-day period, the deal fell through. According to

Mr. Nelson, Gretchen Kaltenbach agreed to return the $1,000.00. However, Mr.

Kaltenbach refused to return the check. The Nelson’s then placed a stop payment on

the check.

Mr. Kaltenbach then filed suit against Dianne Sue Nelson, the signatory of the

check, for “an unjustified stop payment order where the issuer [of the check] acted

in bad faith without lawful or reasonable cause in violation of Louisiana Revised

Statute 9:2782.2.” The case was initially tried before a Justice of the Peace, who

rendered judgment finding Mr. Kaltenbach failed to adequately prove his demand.

Mr. Kaltenbach then filed suit in district court seeking “an appeal from the

Justice of the Peace Court in the form of a trial de novo as set forth in [La.Code

Civ.P.] Art. 4924.” The trial court granted Mr. Kaltenbach’s appeal and fixed the

matter for hearing on January 22, 2010.

Mrs. Nelson, through her attorney, filed a Peremptory Exception of No Right

-1-

of Action, on the grounds Mr. Kaltenbach was not the titled owner of the motor home

in question which formed the basis of the dispute. Mr. Kaltenbach, representing

himself, filed a “Dilatory Exception of No Right of Representation in a Civil Case,”

arguing a “civil suit defendant does not have a right to legal representation.”

At the hearing, Mr. Kaltenbach remained unrepresented by counsel. The trial

court denied his Exception of No Right of Representation in a Civil Case. The trial

court also granted Mrs. Nelson’s Exception of No Right of Action. This appeal

followed.

ANALYSIS

Mr. Kaltenbach, again representing himself on appeal, asserts a number of

assignments of error which are meritless. As to the Exception of No Right of

Representation in a Civil Case, the trial court attempted to explain to Mr. Kaltenbach

that a civil defendant is not denied due process of law merely because he is not

represented by counsel. The trial court explained:

. . . that doesn’t mean that they’re not entitled to an attorney, it means
that if somebody goes through a courtroom and is not represented by
counsel it’s by their choice, and they have not been deprived a due
process of law if they’re not represented. It does not mean they cannot
be represented.

Obviously, it was well within Ms. Nelson’s right to hire an attorney. It was also well

within Mr. Kaltenbach’s right to also hire an attorney, and it is unfortunate for him

that he did not do so. The denial of the Exception of No Right of Representation in

a Civil Case is affirmed.

We also affirm the trial court’s grant of Ms. Nelson’s Exception of No Right

of Action. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 681 provides “. . . an action can

only be brought by a person having a real and actual interest which he asserts. Since
-2-

Mr. Kaltenbach was not the titled owner of the vehicle he is not the proper party to

bring suit.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of

this appeal are assessed against plaintiff-appellant, Robert Kaltenbach.

AFFIRMED.

-3-