ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA. NO. 716-293, DIVISION " P" . HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING.
MARK E. MORICE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Gretna, Louisiana, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.
GERALD J. CALOGERO, ATTORNEY AT LAW, New Orleans, Louisiana, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Hans J. Liljeberg.
FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER,
[14-652 La.App. 5 Cir. 2] Plaintiff filed suit for repayment of money that he allegedly loaned Defendant pursuant to an oral loan agreement. On summary judgment, the trial court found that Plaintiff's action was precluded by the Louisiana Credit Agreement Statute, La. R.S. 6:1122. For the reasons that follow, we find that the trial court erred in applying the Louisiana Credit Agreement Statute to the case at bar. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises out of a dispute over an alleged oral agreement for an unsecured personal loan. Plaintiff, Morgan Palmisano, was involved in a romantic relationship with Defendant, Jennifer Nauman-Anderson, for approximately ten months. During the course of their relationship, Ms. Nauman-Anderson received cash payments, plane tickets, and clothing from Mr. Palmisano. According to Mr. Palmisano, the cash payments at issue were for, inter alia, payments towards Ms. Nauman-Anderson's credit card bills, expenses related to starting her business, and
[14-652 La.App. 5 Cir. 3] Ms. Nauman-Anderson's legal expenses. Mr. Palmisano claims that both parties agreed, at the time he advanced the money and items to Ms. Nauman-Anderson, that he gave them to her pursuant to an oral loan agreement.
According to Ms. Nauman-Anderson, the money and items she received from Mr. Palmisano were gifts. She claims that Mr. Palmisano did not tell her that the items were given to her pursuant to a loan agreement until after their romantic relationship ended. In June 2010, following the termination of their relationship, Mr. Palmisano sent Ms. Nauman-Anderson a promissory note memorializing the terms of their alleged loan agreement. Ms. Nauman-Anderson, however, refused to sign the note. In June 2011, Mr. Palmisano sent Ms. Nauman-Anderson a demand letter requesting that he be repaid in full for his alleged loan to her.
On June 22, 2012, Mr. Palmisano filed suit against Ms. Nauman-Anderson. Mr. Palmisano's petition alleged that Ms. Nauman-Anderson is liable to him in the amount of $25,379.88 for money loaned and advanced to her during the course of their relationship.
Following discovery, on December 19, 2013, Ms. Nauman-Anderson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Ms. Nauman-Anderson's Motion for Summary Judgment was wholly based on the proposition that in order to constitute an actionable loan the subject loan agreement must be written and signed by both parties involved. In her memorandum in support of her Motion for Summary Judgment, Ms. Nauman-Anderson first argued that Mr. Palmisano's lawsuit was barred by the Louisiana Credit Agreement Statute, La. R.S. 6:1122. According to Ms. Nauman-Anderson, La. R.S. 6:1122 requires that all loan agreements be in writing. Ms. Nauman-Anderson also argued that because Mr. Palmisano produced
[14-652 La.App. 5 Cir. 4] an unsigned promissory note during discovery, and promissory notes are only enforceable if signed, Mr. Palmisano, in failing to produce a written, signed and enforceable
promissory note, cannot maintain his claim for repayment of the alleged loan. In support of her Motion for Summary Judgment, Ms. Nauman-Anderson attached several of Mr. Palmisano's discovery responses indicating his inability to ...