First Tower Loan, LLC d/b/a Tower Loan of Winnfield v. Matthew Powell

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 21, 2025
Docket56,241-CA
StatusPublished

This text of First Tower Loan, LLC d/b/a Tower Loan of Winnfield v. Matthew Powell (First Tower Loan, LLC d/b/a Tower Loan of Winnfield v. Matthew Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
First Tower Loan, LLC d/b/a Tower Loan of Winnfield v. Matthew Powell, (La. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Judgment rendered May 21, 2025. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.

No. 56,236-CA No. 56,241-CA (Consolidated Cases)

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

***** FIRST TOWER LOAN, LLC Plaintiff-Appellant D/B/A TOWER LOAN OF WINNFIELD versus

ROY COMBS Defendant-Appellee *****

consolidated with

***** FIRST TOWER LOAN, LLC Plaintiff-Appellant D/B/A TOWER LOAN OF WINNFIELD versus

MATTHEW POWELL, AKA Defendant-Appellee MATTHEW DOMINIQUE POWELL ***** Appealed from the Eighth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Winn, Louisiana Trial Court Nos. 47,276 and 47,491

Honorable Anastasia S. Wiley, Judge ***** ROGERS, CARTER & PAYNE, LLC Counsel for Appellant By: Jessica L. Greber

MATTHEW POWELL, A/K/A In Proper Person MATTHEW DOMINIQUE POWELL *****

Before STONE, MARCOTTE, and ELLENDER, JJ. ELLENDER, J.

In these consolidated cases, First Tower Loan LLC, d/b/a Tower Loan

of Winnfield, appeals 15 default judgments in which the district court

rendered judgments for amounts different from those alleged in the petitions,

verified in the affidavits of correctness, and stated in the proposed

judgments. For the reasons expressed, we amend the judgments to conform

to the records and, as amended, render. A separate opinion is issued for each

borrower.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Matthew Powell, a/k/a Matthew Dominique Powell, of Winnfield,

La., took out a loan from Tower Loan on September 30, 2022. The amount

financed was $4,909.45, at a stated APR of 31.73%, requiring Powell to

make 30 payments of $241.00, for a total of $7,230.00. His final payment

was to be April 9, 2025, but, according to Tower Loan’s petition, his last

payment was on July 24, 2023, leaving a balance of $4,482.78.

Tower Loan filed this suit on January 29, 2024, seeking the unpaid

balance of $4,482.78, together with contractual interest of 30.48% per

annum for one year beginning December 13, 2023, and 18% thereafter. The

petition also prayed for late charges, court costs, collection costs, contractual

attorney fees, and a recognition of its security interest in the movables

described in the loan agreement.

Powell filed no responsive pleading, so Tower Loan moved for

default judgment. In support, it attached an affidavit of correctness executed

by Scott Lee, and officer of the company, verifying that the balance due was $4,482.78 and that the interest rate, under the loan agreement, was 30.48%

for one year beginning December 13, 2023, and 18% thereafter until paid in

full. Tower Loan also provided a proposed judgment stating this balance

due, the interest rate, and other matters not germane to this appeal.

The district court rendered judgment as prayed for, by judgment date-

stamped April 22, 2024. However, on July 15, 2024, the only minute entry

in the record, the court “reviewed record and amended interest.” In the

transcript, the court stated only, “Okay, I’m returning the same to the Clerk.”

The court left the principal amount intact but drew a line through the interest

rate of 30.48%/18%, writing over it, “legal” interest.

Tower Loan has appealed, raising four assignments of error. Powell

has not filed a brief.

DISCUSSION

Compliance with Art. 1702

By its first assignment of error, Tower Loan urges the court erred in

failing to accept Tower Loan’s affidavit of correctness, submitted in support

of the proposed judgment, as prima facie proof of the indebtedness owed

under the promissory note, as required by La. C.C.P. art. 1702(B)(3). By its

second assignment, Tower Loan urges the court erred in failing either to sign

the proposed default judgment or direct that a hearing be held, as required by

La. C.C.P. art. 1702(C).

For the reasons expressed in First Tower Loan v. Combs, 56,236 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 5/21/25), rendered this day, these assignments have merit. The

district court lacked authority to disregard the affidavit of correctness and

erred in not signing the proposed judgment.

2 Award of Interest

By its third assignment of error, Tower Loan urges the court erred in

failing to award interest as prayed for and as mandated by La. C.C. art. 1921.

By its fourth assignment, Tower Loan urges the court erred in reducing

interest in the judgment to “legal interest” from the amount stated in the loan

agreement, contrary to La. R.S. 9:3519 and 9:3522. For the reasons

expressed in First Tower Loan v. Combs, supra, these assignments have

merit.

The loan agreement states that the amount financed was $4,909.45.

Under La. R.S. 9:3519, Tower Loan could charge 24% on the portion of the

principal that exceeds $4,000 but does not exceed $7,000 (this portion would

be $909.45); 27% on the portion that that exceeds $1,400 but does not

exceed $4,000 (this portion would be $2,600); and 36% on the remaining

portion. The affidavit states that these rates, properly apportioned, yield a

contractual rate of 30.48%. Moreover, Powell’s loan was accelerated on

December 13, 2023; hence, after December 13, 2024, the interest cannot

exceed 18%.1 The amount prayed for in the petition, and stated in the

proposed judgment, complies with the applicable laws.

The district court lacked authority to award interest different from that

stated in the loan agreement, the petition, and the affidavit. The judgment

will be amended to provide the contractual and legal rate.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed, the principal and interest stated in the

judgment are amended as follows:

1 In brief, Tower Loan states the cutoff date for contractual interest is April 9, 2026, but this is obviously a typo. 3 IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of the plaintiff, FIRST TOWER LOAN, LLC, d/b/a TOWER LOAN OF WINNFIELD, and against the defendant, MATTHEW POWELL, a/k/a MATTHEW DOMINIQUE POWELL (SSN XXX-XX-4703), in the amount of $4,482.78, together with interest thereon at the rate of 30.48% per annum for one year beginning December 13, 2023, and 18% thereafter, until paid.

In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. All costs are to be paid

by the borrower, Matthew Powell, a/k/a Matthew Dominique Powell.

AMENDED, AFFIRMED AS AMENDED, AND RENDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
First Tower Loan, LLC d/b/a Tower Loan of Winnfield v. Matthew Powell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-tower-loan-llc-dba-tower-loan-of-winnfield-v-matthew-powell-lactapp-2025.