Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Seemann

Summary

The Louisiana Court of Appeal considers whether Karl A. Seemann’s reconventional demand against Chrysler Credit Corporation was prescribed. The court holds that the redhibition claim was prescribed because the pleadings alleged no facts showing interruption or suspension of the one-year period, and that the allegations did not state a fraud claim subject to a longer prescriptive period. The judgment sustaining the exception of prescription is affirmed.

Holdings

1. A redhibition claim is generally subject to a one-year prescriptive period running from the date of sale; because the reconventional demand alleged no facts showing a later discovery date, undisclosed defect, or abandoned repair efforts, the claim was prescribed on the face of the pleadings.
2. The allegations did not establish legal fraud by Chrysler Credit; at most, they alleged a promise to perform an act in the future, and failure to perform that promise is not legal fraud.
3. Even if Chrysler Credit were shown to be the alter ego of Chrysler Corporation, the redhibition claim against it would still be prescribed because the claim prescribed before the reconventional demand was filed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Seemann's redhibition claim was prescribed on the face of the reconventional demand.
2. Whether alleged attempts by the seller to repair the van interrupted or suspended the one-year prescription period when the pleadings did not allege when the defect was discovered or when repair efforts were abandoned.
3. Whether the allegations stated a fraud claim subject to a ten-year prescriptive period rather than a prescribed redhibition claim.

Disposition

affirmed