Washington v. Lee Tractor Co., Inc.

Citations: 526 So. 2d 447; 1988 La. App. LEXIS 1277; 1988 WL 51514Docket: 88-CA-5

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 16, 1988; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lee Tractor Company, Inc. (Lee) appeals a trial court judgment that annulled a prior summary judgment favoring it in a personal injury case filed by Alexander Washington. Washington sustained injuries from a fall off a tractor sold by Lee to his employer and had previously filed a related federal lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, the tractor's manufacturer. Lee obtained summary judgment on May 17, 1985, based on an affidavit stating it had not sold the tractor. However, on June 17, 1985, Lee's counsel discovered evidence—a sales invoice—contradicting the affidavit and offered to rescind the summary judgment. Washington's original attorney accepted this offer, but later indicated she would not pursue the state case after the federal lawsuit was dismissed.

In June 1986, new counsel for Washington requested the rescission, to which Lee's attorney opposed, citing the earlier communications and the closure of his file. Washington then filed a petition to annul the summary judgment on August 22, 1986. Lee contested this, arguing the petition was untimely due to the one-year peremptive period and claimed it was not engaging in ill practices by refusing to rescind the judgment. The trial court found that the false affidavit constituted an ill practice, thus allowing the annulment despite the lapse of time. The court ruled against Lee's exception of prescription and annulled the summary judgment, leading to this appeal. Key legal principles invoked include Louisiana Civil Code Article 2004, which allows annulment for judgments procured by fraud or ill practices.

The defendant's refusal to rescind the summary judgment on June 3, 1986, constitutes an ill practice under Article 2004. The Rules of Professional Conduct, effective January 1, 1987, impose a continuous duty on attorneys to address false evidence, which includes actions such as correcting false statements or revealing fraudulent evidence. Specifically, Rule 3.3 outlines that lawyers cannot knowingly make false statements, conceal necessary information, or present false evidence. If an attorney learns that evidence previously offered is false, they must take reasonable remedial measures. Although this rule was not in effect during the proceedings in question, similar principles existed in D.R. 7-102. Case law indicates that violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility can invalidate judgments obtained through ill practice if proven. In this case, evidence of such a violation was established, as the false evidence was never corrected. The Supreme Court's comments in Stewart v. Goeb emphasize that Article 2004 serves as a remedy for injustices in judgment rendering, requiring an analysis of whether the judgment is unconscionable and whether the party seeking annulment was deprived of a legal right. The current case satisfies this analysis; Mr. Washington was deprived of his legal action against Lee due to the failure to rescind the summary judgment, which was unjustly maintained. Thus, the events demonstrate an ill practice.

An annulment may be justified in cases of ill practice, even without evidence of actual fraud or intentional wrongdoing (Collins v. Collins, 325 So.2d 773). The trial judge correctly annulled a prior summary judgment dated May 17, 1985, although the judgment mistakenly referenced May 17, 1987. The intention of the trial court is clear, and correcting this clerical error does not alter the substance of the judgment, as permitted under C.C.P. Art. 1951. The Appellate Court has the authority to amend clerical errors (Frazier v. Carl E. Woodward, Inc., 378 So.2d 209; International Paper Co. v. Rivers, 35 So.2d 677). The judgment is revised to correctly state May 17, 1985, and is affirmed as revised, with all costs assessed to the appellant. Additionally, Lee was sued as the vendor of a defective tractor, and summary judgment was granted based on an affidavit stating there was no evidence of Lee selling the tractor.