Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by Rolene Corporation, Trois-Amis, Inc., and Louis Koerner against a trial court decision that upheld an exception of prescription on their claims against attorney Russell Bankston and his insurer. The initial legal action stemmed from a breach of warranty suit filed by Rolene against Trois-Amis, Inc., concerning a property sale marred by mineral reservations and lacking a waiver of surface rights. Bankston, who served as an attorney in related transactions, was added as a defendant due to alleged negligence in title examination and documents oversight. The trial court applied a one-year prescriptive period to Bankston’s representations, ruling that any claims were time-barred, as neither Trois-Amis, Inc. nor Bankston were liable in solido. On appeal, the appellants contested the prescriptive period's application and the findings of no solidary liability. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming that prescription began when the appellants were aware of Bankston's alleged omissions, and claims were not filed timely. Bankston was found not to have guaranteed any outcomes and was not liable as a solidary obligor, given the absence of a direct obligation to Rolene. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, with the appellants bearing the appeal costs.
Legal Issues Addressed
Commencement of Prescriptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Prescription commenced when Rolene and Trois-Amis, Inc. became aware of the alleged act or omission by Bankston, with all elements necessary for prescription being present.
Reasoning: Prescription commenced on July 8, 1982, when Rolene and Trois-Amis, Inc. became aware of the alleged act or omission by Bankston.
Exception of Prescriptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the exception of prescription, indicating the claims against attorney Bankston and his insurer were time-barred due to the expiration of the one-year prescriptive period.
Reasoning: The trial court determined that a one-year prescriptive period applied to Bankston’s representations, concluding that any claims against him had prescribed and that neither Trois-Amis, Inc. nor Bankston were liable in solido.
Representation and Liability of Attorneyssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the potential liability of Bankston was tied to his actions post-Act of Exchange and not to any representation of Trois-Amis.
Reasoning: In addressing the first assignment of error, the court clarified that while the trial court did not state Bankston lacked representation, any potential liability was tied to his actions post-Act of Exchange.
Solidary Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that Bankston and Trois-Amis, Inc. were not solidary obligors under Louisiana law, as there was no contractual or tortious relationship between Bankston and Rolene.
Reasoning: Regarding Assignment of Error No. 4, the trial court found that Bankston and Trois-Amis, Inc. were not solidary obligors under Louisiana law, which requires a person to be an obligor to be liable solidarily.