First Tower Loan, LLC d/b/a Tower Loan of Winnfield v. Sheila Martin

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 56,237-CA
• Status: Published

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. 56,237-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

SHELIA MARTIN, A/K/A Defendant-Appellee SHELIA ANNE MARTIN, A/K/A SHELIA A. MARTIN ***** Appealed from the Eighth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Winn, Louisiana Trial Court Nos. 47,276 and 47,359

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

SHELIA MARTIN, A/K/A SHELIA In Proper Person ANNE MARTIN, A/K/A SHELIA A. MARTIN *****

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

Shelia Martin, a/k/a Shelia Anne Martin or Shelia A. Martin, of

Winnfield, took out a loan from Tower Loan on August 18, 2022. The

amount financed was $6,524.54, at a stated APR of 29.88%, requiring

Martin to make 36 payments of $280.00 each, for a total of $10,080.00. Her

final payment was to be September 2, 2025, but, according to Tower Loan’s

petition, her last payment was on April 20, 2023, leaving a balance of

$6,561.24.

Tower Loan filed this suit on September 11, 2023, seeking the unpaid

balance $6,561.24, together with contractual interest of 29.08% per annum

for one year beginning August 15, 2023, and 18% thereafter. The petition

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.

Martin filed no responsive pleading, so Tower Loan moved for default

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

Anthony Barnes, an officer of the company, verifying that the balance due was $6,561.24 and that the interest rate, under the loan agreement, was

29.08% for one year beginning August 15, 2023, and 18% thereafter until

paid. It also provided a proposed judgment stating this balance due, interest

rate, and other matters not germane to this appeal.1

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

stamped March 28, 2024. However, on July 15, 2024, the only minute entry

in the record, the court “reviewed record” and “amended judgment amount.”

The court stated, “The amount on this is modified to the amount that was

borrowed also[.]” The court drew a line through the principal of the

judgment, changing it from $6,561.24 to $6,524.54, and through the interest

rate of 29.08%/18%, changing it to “legal” interest.

Tower Loan has appealed, raising five assignments of error. Martin

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 default 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

1 The judgment referred to the borrower as Sheila Martin, but the signature on the loan agreement appears to match the name as listed on that document and in the petition. 2 district court lacked authority to disregard the affidavit of correctness and

erred in not signing the proposed judgment.

Reduction of Principal

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

reducing the principal amount of the judgment from the amount prayed for

and properly rebated in accordance with La. R.S. 9:3533, to the amount

financed on the face of the promissory note. For the reasons expressed in

First Tower Loan v. Combs, supra, this assignment has merit.

The loan agreement reflects a finance charge of $3,555.46, including a

prepaid finance charge of $70.00 and precomputed interest of $3,485.46.

Total payments would come to $10,080.00; according to the affidavit, the

unpaid balance, after all rebates, is $6,561.24. There is no further

requirement for an itemization of payments or how the total amount sued

upon was calculated. Moore Fin. Co. v. Ebarb, 46,392 (La. App. 2 Cir.

5/18/11), 70 So. 3d 856. The district court lacked authority to render

judgment for a principal amount other than $6,561.24. The judgment will be

amended to this amount.

Award of Interest

By its fourth 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 fifth 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.

3 The loan agreement states that the amount financed was $6,524.54.

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

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

would be $2,524.54); 27% on the portion 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 29.08%. Moreover, Martin’s loan was accelerated on

August 15, 2023; hence, after August 15, 2024, the interest cannot exceed

18%. 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.

DECREE

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

judgment are amended as follows:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of plaintiff, FIRST TOWER LOAN, LLC, d/b/a TOWER LOAN OF WINNFIELD, and against defendant, SHELIA MARTIN, a/k/a SHELIA ANNE MARTIN, a/k/a SHELIA A. MARTIN (SSN XXX-XX-3573), in the amount of $6,561.24, together with interest at 29.08% per annum for one year beginning August 15, 2023, and 18% thereafter, until paid.

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

by the borrower, Shelia Martin, a/k/a Shelia Anne Martin, a/k/a Shelia A.

Martin.

AMENDED, AFFIRMED AS AMENDED, AND RENDERED.