Franklin v. BRIDGES LOAN & INVESTMENT CO., INC.
This text of 371 So. 2d 294 (Franklin v. BRIDGES LOAN & INVESTMENT CO., INC.) 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.
Opinion
James E. FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRIDGES LOAN & INVESTMENT CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
James E. Franklin, Jr., Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.
D. G. Tyler, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.
Before BOLIN, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.
JONES, Judge.
Plaintiff, James E. Franklin, appeals a judgment sustaining defendant's, Bridges Loan & Investment Co., Inc., peremptory exception of one year prescription and dismissing plaintiff's suit for damages caused by defendant's loss of plaintiff's collateral mortgage note. We affirm.
On July 23, 1972, plaintiff executed a collateral mortgage on his property securing *295 an any future holder demand note in the amount of $20,500. Plaintiff forwarded to defendant what he called an interim loan package containing a certified copy of the recorded mortgage, the collateral mortgage note, a mortgage certificate, tax certificate, copy of survey, affidavit of no new construction and title opinion. Plaintiff then decided not to build upon the mortgaged property and obtained no loan from defendant.
Plaintiff filed this suit for damages more than one year after he discovered defendant had lost the collateral mortgage note. The trial court held plaintiff's cause of action based upon defendant's negligence was in tort and had prescribed.[1]
The issue is does plaintiff's petition state a contractual claim for damages and for this reason is not subject to the tort prescription of one year.[2]
A party having an action for damages in contract and tort may elect which remedy he will pursue and the allegations of his petition taken as a whole will determine the character of plaintiff's action. Federal Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 262 La. 509, 263 So.2d 871 (1972); LaFleur v. Brown, 223 La. 976, 67 So.2d 556 (1953).
Plaintiff in brief contends defendant had an obligation to return the collateral mortgage note by virtue of a contractual relation entered between plaintiff and defendant wherein defendant was obligated to make the loan if plaintiff so desired.
In order for the plaintiff's cause of action to be governed by a ten year prescription period, it is essential that it be based upon the contract of pledge because that is the nature of the contract which results from the borrowing of money secured by a collateral note. "The pledge is a contract by which one debtor gives something to his creditor as security for his debt." C.C. Art. 3133. The pledgee is liable for loss of the thing pledged occasioned by his fault and the prescriptive period of ten years would be applicable for breach of this contractual obligation.[3]
The only allegations in plaintiff's petition directly relating to a loan from the defendant to be secured by the lost collateral note are:
"Thereafter, plaintiff, James E. Franklin, decided not to build on the lot and no draws were ever made on the interim loan.
That plaintiff, prior to the loan, had followed the same procedure on approximately fifteen to twenty-five loans. . ." Tr. 6, 7, p. 3
Plaintiff makes no allegation, nor is there any evidence in the record, that the defendant ever promised him a loan, nor was there any hand note prepared and executed evidencing such a loan to be secured by the now lost collateral note.
In the decision of Thrift Funds Canal, Inc. v. Foy, 261 La. 573, 260 So.2d 628, 630 (1972), the supreme court in discussing the collateral mortgage stated:
"A collateral mortgage is a mortgage designed, not to directly secure an existing debt, but to secure a mortgage note pledged as collateral security for a debt or a succession of debts. The mortgage is usually drawn in favor of future holders, *296 represented by a nominal mortgagee. For convenience in pledging, the companion promissory note is usually payable to bearer on demand. The maker may reissue the note from time to time. See LSA-R.S. 7:9; LiRocchi v. Keen, 242 La. 111, 134 So.2d 893 (1961); Mente & Co. v. Levy, 160 La. 496, 107 So. 318 (1926); Odom v. Cherokee Homes, Inc., La.App., 165 So.2d 855 (1964), cert. den. 246 La. 867, 167 So.2d 677; Woodward, Louisiana Notarial Manual, § 5.11, p. 132; § 5.25, pp. 151-156 (1953); 25 La.L.Rev. 789, 792-793 (1965)."
In the decision of New Orleans Silversmiths, Inc. v. Toups, 261 So.2d 252, 254 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), the court recognized that the collateral mortgage becomes viable when the hand note is executed:
"Its legal efficacy against third persons is contemporaneous with the execution of the hand note for the payment of which it is given in pledge."
Neither the preparation and recordation of the collateral mortgage, nor the physical act of placing the collateral note and a certified copy of the mortgage in the hands of a possible lender, creates the contract of pledge. There must be a meeting of the minds between pledgor and pledgee concerning the transaction. The pledge is an accessorial obligation and normally cannot exist without a primary obligation.[4] This rule is subject to an exception[5] contained in C.C. Art. 3158.[6] The exception *297 has no application to the facts of this case because it only applies to a situation where a pledged collateral note remains in the hands of the pledgee after the obligation which it was given to secure has been extinguished by payment.
The plaintiff executed the lost note on July 13, 1972 and delivered it to defendant the same day. There is in the record a ledger sheet showing plaintiff's loan transactions with defendant during the year of 1972 and it reflects that during the five month period from April 13 until September 12 plaintiff owed defendant no sums of money and the account was entirely dormant. There was no indication on this ledger sheet or otherwise in the record of defendant having any contractual rights related to the lost note. The delivery of the note and other documents in the "interim loan package" did not create any contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant. The very most these circumstances establish is preparation on the part of the plaintiff to borrow money from the defendant and preparation to pledge as security for the loan the collateral mortgage note which was later lost.
The trial judge was correct in holding that plaintiff's cause of action was in tort and prescribed.
AFFIRMED at appellant's cost.
NOTES
[1] C.C. Art. 3536"The following actions are also prescribed by one year: That for injurious words, whether verbal or written, and that for damages caused by animals, or resulting from offenses or quasi offenses.
That which a possessor may institute, to have himself maintained or restored to his possession, when he has been disturbed or evicted.
That for the delivery of merchandise or other effects, shipped on board any kind of vessels.
That for damage sustained by merchandise on board ships, or which may have happened by ships running foul of each other."
[2] C.C. Art. 3544"In general, all personal actions, except those before enumerated, are prescribed by ten years."
[3] C.C. Art. 3167"The creditor is answerable agreeably to the rules which have been established under the title: Of Conventional Obligations, for the loss or decay of the pledge which may happen through his fault.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
371 So. 2d 294, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-bridges-loan-investment-co-inc-lactapp-1979.