Avoyelles payday advances, LLC v. Griffin Following test on the merits, the test court issued a viewpoint wherein



Derrick M. Whittington, Whittington payday loan companies Indiana Law Practice, Marksville, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Avoyelles Pay Day Loans, LLC. Trista M. Griffin, Bunkie, Los Angeles, for Defendant/Appellee, In Proper Individual.

Derrick M. Whittington, Whittington Law Practice, Marksville, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Avoyelles Payday Advances, LLC.

Trista M. Griffin, Bunkie, Los Angeles, for Defendant/Appellee, In Proper Individual.

Court consists of JOHN D. SAUNDERS, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.


Plaintiff, Avoyelles payday advances, LLC (payday advances), appeals the test court’s judgment and only Defendant, Trista M. Griffin, dismissing its suit on a promissory note. For the reasons that are following we affirm.


May 20, 2010, Ms. Griffin executed a note that is promissory pay day loans when you look at the level of $275.00, payable in a single installment of $275.00 on 7, 2010 june. Ms. Griffin additionally issued a check to pay day loans for $275.00 dated June 7, 2010. Nevertheless, the check ended up being drafted for an account that is closed therefore, there have been inadequate funds to pay for the check. Thereafter, pay day loans switched the problem up to the Avoyelles Parish District Attorney’s useless Check Division. The region lawyer’s workplace contacted Ms. Griffin concerning the check that is worthless. Ms. Griffin then produced re re payment of $386.08 towards the region lawyer’s workplace on 23, 2010 august. Subsequent thereto, the region lawyer’s workplace mailed $305.54 to pay day loans, the receipt of that was recognized by the signature of Francis Keller, the master of payday advances, on August 31, 2010.

The region lawyer’s workplace retained $80.54 for a group charge.

May 9, 2013, Payday Loans filed a Petition on Promissory Note seeking the quantities presumably due in the promissory note. Ms. Griffin replied the lawsuit doubting payday advances’ allegations.


With its single project of mistake, pay day loans asserts that the test court erred in failing woefully to honor it damages and lawyer charges against Ms. Griffin pursuant towards the promissory note.


Following test in the merits, the test court issued a viewpoint wherein it established the known facts which were proven at test as well as its grounds for ruling, saying the following:

The sum of the $ 305.54 went along to the Plaintiff which evidently covered the amount of the check ($275.00), the cost charged by the financial institution ($ 25.00), and yet another level of $ 5.54 which will be either interest or even the price of delivering an avowed page. At any rate, the Court is of this viewpoint that Ms. Griffin should certainly count on the re re payment that she meant to clear any debt up she owed to your Plaintiff. Throughout the test, Mr. Francis Keller, President of Avoyelles payday advances, LLC had been expected by his lawyer what the total amount ended up being that has been owed by Ms. Griffin following the re re payment of $ 305.54. He had been not able to appear with a stability. If there is a stability owed, why wait almost three years to aim collection? Ms. Griffin received the sum of the $ 225.00 may 20, 2010, which is why she paid the sum $ 386.08 in August of 2010. The Court is certain that Ms. Griffin will have compensated whatever amount required by the District Attorney for restitution into the Plaintiff. The Court discovers in support of the Defendant and up against the Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s price.

Pay day loans argues in its brief to this court that “the district attorney’s involvement in cases like this had been just to eliminate the problem for the useless check, perhaps perhaps maybe not gathering the balance for an available account.” Notably, nevertheless, the be sure had been came back for inadequate funds had been for re re payment for the loan in complete; it absolutely was perhaps maybe perhaps maybe not an installment payment. There have been no payments that are remaining be manufactured by Ms. Griffin to fulfill her payment responsibilities. Undisputedly, the region lawyer had been effective in gathering the number of the check, and re re payment of $305.54 ended up being designed to pay day loans in 2010 august.

Conceivably, it had been the date of the fax that Mr. Keller had been referencing, mistakenly, during the pretrial seminar as the date re re re payment had been gotten.

In relation to the data, it absolutely was plainly founded that Ms. Griffin issued a useless search for $275.00 which is why she remitted re re payment totaling $386.08 on August 23, 2010. The region lawyer then forwarded $305.54 to pay day loans, that was acquiesced by Mr. Keller on August 31, 2010. Ms. Griffin ended up being never told that she nevertheless owed cash to payday advances, and she wasn’t contacted by them once more for a long time. Ms. Griffin later consented, during the conference that is pretrial to pay for yet another $150.00 to payday advances based on Mr. Keller’s erroneous representation that payday advances wasn’t compensated until 2013. The viewpoint of this test court accurately sets forth the reality and proof, and we also find no manifest mistake in the test court’s judgment in support of Ms. Griffin.

Appellate courts are to make use of the manifest mistake standard of review to your test court’s factual determinations. See Granger v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 14–111 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/14), 140 So.3d 1283.

As inferred by the test court, we likewise discover that when payday advances opted to make use of the “strong supply” of this region lawyer to aid it in gathering the total amount it advertised had been owed by Ms. Griffin, after which accepted the total amount gathered because of the region lawyer’s workplace from Ms. Griffin, payday advances’ claim against Ms. Griffin had been completely pleased and extinguished. To rule otherwise will allow double-dipping and a collection that is excessive.


The judgment of the trial court in favor of Trista M. Griffin, dismissing the claims of Avoyelles Payday Loans, LLC, is affirmed for the foregoing reasons. Expenses of the appeal are examined to Avoyelles payday advances, LLC.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht.

Du kannst folgende HTML-Tags benutzen: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>