Full text
Kenneth J. Daigle, Individually and in his capacity as the Representative of the Succession of June P. LaFrance and the Succession of George L. Daigle III v. Karen Meyers
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
KENNETH J. DAIGLE, NO. 2021 CW 0787 INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS ( PAGE 1 OF 2) CAPACITY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
SUCCESSION OF JUNE P. LAFRANCE AND THE SUCCESSION OF GEORGE L. DAIGLE III
VERSUS
KAREN MEYERS OCTOBER 1, 2021
In Re: Kenneth J. Daigle, individually and in his capacity as the representative of the succession of June P. LaFrance and the succession of George L. Daigle III,
applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2020- 12765.
BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.
WRIT DENIED.
PMC MRT
Welch, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. In her Answer to Petition for Damages plaintiff' s and Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief, defendant, Karen Meyers, specifically admitted that plaintiff is " entitled to the Funds/ accounts herein described[,]" is entitled to a judgment " declaring [ him to be the] owner of the Funds and requiring [ Meyers] to return
the Funds to Plaintiff, as well as fruits, products, or other relief to which [ he] is entitled[,]" and that she has " withheld
possession of the Funds or has otherwise disposed of the Funds to which Plaintiff is entitled with no right or basis of doing so." See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1004.
Conversion can be committed when possession is withheld
from the owner or possessor, with its intent simply being to exercise a dominion or control over the goods which is in fact inconsistent with the plaintiff' s rights. Commercial Flooring and Mini Blinds, Inc. v. Edenfield, 2013- 0523 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 14/ 14), 138 So. 3d 30, 38- 39 & Louisiana State Bar Assn v.
Hinrichs, 486 So. 2d 116, 121 ( La. 1986). Moreover, Meyers' Answer did not provide any affirmative defense or justification for her possession of the subject funds in question. Therefore, based on the admissions contained in Meyers' Answer, I find that plaintiff' s legal right to the subject funds is clearly established, and would grant his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, recognizing and maintaining his right to the subject
funds, consisting of $ 89, 000. 00, and order defendant, Karen Meyers, to restore possession of the funds to plaintiff. See Gibbens v. Wendy' s Foods, Inc., 31, 487 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 1/ 20/ 99), 729 So. 2d 629, 631 & Louisiana Rentals, Machinery L. L. C. v. Kean Miller, L. L. P., 2017- 1768 ( La. 1st CIr. App. 2/ 20/ 19), 2019 WL 759935 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2019- 0464 La. 6/ 17/ 19), 274 So. 3d 1260. However, I would deny the writ in
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2021 CW 0787 PAGE 2 OF 2)
all other respects, as the amounts of any fruits, products, or
other damages sought by plaintiff, were not sufficiently set
forth in his petition to allow for a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
— 1 —
1/