Blount v. Hardy

Louisiana Court of Appeal · Evidence

EvidenceDefault judgmentsStatement of facts on appealVagueness of pleadingsconfirmation of defaultstatement of factsCode of Practice art. 602Code of Practice art. 603

Facts

Plaintiff sued for $150 in alleged lost profit for breach of a verbal contract to build three houses, claiming defendant stopped the work after plaintiff had performed substantial work. Defendant first filed an exception of vagueness to the original petition, which was sustained, and then filed a second exception to the amended petition, which was overruled. The default was later confirmed, but no note of testimony and no statement of facts appeared in the record. After judgment, defense counsel asked plaintiff's counsel and the district judge for a statement of the facts proved to confirm the default, but each merely referred him to the judgment's general recital that due proof had been offered.

Issue

First, whether the amended petition remained so vague that the trial court erred in overruling the second exception of vagueness. Second, whether the judgment confirming default should be reversed and the case remanded when no written testimony or statement of facts was in the record and the defendant's requests for a statement of facts under the Code of Practice were not meaningfully honored.

Rule

A petition is sufficiently definite if, read as amended, it clearly and concisely states the object of the demand and the cause of action as required by article 172 of the Code of Practice. Under articles 602 and 603 of the Code of Practice, when witness depositions have not been taken in writing, the appealing party may require the adverse party to join in preparing a statement of facts, and if the parties cannot agree, the court must make such a statement; a request that substantially complies with those articles is sufficient, and a nonresponsive reference to the judgment is not a statement of facts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Shreveport, Nora Bell obtained a default judgment against Devin Cross on an oral landscaping agreement. No testimony was written down. After judgment, Devin's lawyer asked Nora's lawyer to "work with me on a statement of what facts were proved at the default hearing," and then asked the trial judge for a statement if counsel would not agree; both responded only that the judgment recited that adequate proof had been offered.

On appeal, what is the most likely result?

Explanation. When testimony was not taken in writing, the appellant may require the adverse party to join in preparing a statement of facts, and if that fails, may request the court to make one. Substantial compliance is enough; no sacramental wording is required. A response that merely points to a judgment recital that due or adequate proof was offered is not a statement of facts at all, so reversal and remand are warranted.