Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reviewed a judgment denying Guerbet, LLC's motion to reopen a garnishment proceeding and vacate a garnishment judgment entered in favor of Tower Credit, Inc. The court held that Guerbet's late-filed garnishment answers and failure to appear at the judgment pro confesso hearing did not sufficiently rebut the prima facie case created by its failure to timely answer the interrogatories. The court recalled the rule to show cause, maintained the appeal, and affirmed the judgment as amended.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Guerbet's verified answers to the garnishment interrogatories, filed before the judgment pro confesso hearing, were sufficient to rebut the prima facie proof created by its failure to timely answer.
- Whether the city court was required to take judicial notice of Guerbet's answers and deny the motion for judgment pro confesso.
- Whether Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:3923 authorized the city court to reopen the garnishment proceedings and vacate a judgment pro confesso rendered under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2413.
- Whether the October 30, 2024 judgment, as amended, contained sufficient decretal language to constitute a valid final and appealable judgment.
Holdings
- The October 30, 2024 judgment, as amended by the October 7, 2025 judgment, contained proper decretal language, disposed of Guerbet's motion and claims, and constituted a valid final appealable judgment.
- Although late answers may be considered as rebuttal evidence, Guerbet's answers were not sufficient on this record to rebut the prima facie proof because Guerbet did not appear at the contradictory hearing and presented no evidence or testimony enabling the city court to weigh the competing information.
- On the facts presented, the judgment pro confesso rendered under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2413 was not subject to being amended or vacated under Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:3923(A), and the city court properly denied Guerbet's motion to reopen and vacate.
Key quotations
“A garnishment proceeding is nothing more than a streamlined legal process for obtaining the seizure of property of a judgment debtor in the hands of a third party.” (at 8)
“The failure of the garnishee to answer prior to the filing of such a contradictory motion is prima facie proof that he has property of or is indebted to the judgment debtor to the extent of the judgment, interest, and costs.” (at 8)
“Though a garnishee's failure to file a sworn answer to garnishment interrogatories entitles the judgment creditor to file a motion for judgment pro confesso, said motion is not self-executing.” (at 8)
Factual background
Tower Credit obtained a default judgment against Profit and Lee and sought to garnish Lee's alleged wages from Guerbet. Guerbet did not answer the garnishment interrogatories under oath within the statutory delay, resulting in prima facie proof under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2413 and a judgment pro confesso against Guerbet. Guerbet later filed answers denying that it employed Lee or possessed any of his property, but it did not appear at the pro confesso hearing. The record also reflected employment-verification information identifying Guerbet America, LLC—not Guerbet—as Lee's employer, followed by a correction from the verification service.
Procedural history
Tower Credit obtained a default judgment against Veronica F. Profit and Michael T. Lee on a promissory note and later initiated garnishment proceedings naming Guerbet as garnishee. Guerbet failed to timely answer the garnishment interrogatories, and the city court entered a judgment pro confesso against it. Guerbet later filed answers denying that it employed Lee or possessed his property and moved to reopen and vacate the garnishment judgment. After the appellate court twice remanded for proper decretal language, the city court entered a second amended judgment, and the court of appeal recalled its rule to show cause, maintained the appeal, and affirmed.