You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Chauser v. Babin

Citations: 398 So. 2d 20; 1981 La. App. LEXIS 3826Docket: No. 11466

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 9, 1981; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
An appeal was filed by plaintiff Rose D. Chauser against a district court judgment that dismissed her action on a promissory note due to an exception of prescription. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Chauser contended that the trial court erred by rendering judgment without a contradictory hearing, which she claimed deprived her of the chance to present evidence of interruption of prescription.

The record shows that the exception was filed on December 17, 1979, with a hearing scheduled for January 24, 1980. However, Chauser did not attend the hearing nor was she represented by counsel. Consequently, the court dismissed her case due to her failure to present any evidence. The judgment included a certificate of mailing from the Clerk of Court confirming that all parties were notified.

The court found that Chauser had the opportunity to present evidence but did not take it, and therefore, her attempt to submit new evidence through uncertified photocopies attached to her brief was not permissible, as it was outside the scope of the appellate review.

The trial court ruled that the mortgage agreement, executed on October 8, 1965, and maturing in sixty monthly installments, constituted a debt that matured in less than nine years. The mortgage was registered on October 22, 1965, but not reinscribed by 1975, which was crucial since the promissory note was found to have prescribed under a five-year period established by Civil Code Article 3540. The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s dismissal was correct due to the lack of evidence supporting the interruption of prescription. The judgment was affirmed, with Judge Redmann concurring and providing additional written reasons.