Diamond Services Corp. v. Benoit
780 So. 2d 367, 2001 WL 168059 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The maker of a collateral mortgage note is not personally liable beyond the value of the mortgaged property when the collateral mortgage note is pledged to secure the debt of a third party, absent an additional, express agreement imposing such personal liability.
Facts:
- On May 7, 1993, William Davenport signed two hand notes to obtain lines of credit for his corporation, International Diving and Consulting, Inc.: one for $350,000.00 from Morgan City Bank and Trust Company (MC Bank) and another for $300,000.00 from Diamond Services Corporation. Davenport signed as guarantor on both hand notes.
- On the same date, Delores N. Benoit, a friend solicited by Davenport, executed documents comprising two collateral mortgage packages on her 410.92-acre tract of land in Acadia Parish.
- The first package was in favor of MC Bank, consisting of a mortgage, a $350,000.00 collateral mortgage note, and a pledge of that note to secure Davenport's $350,000.00 MC Bank hand note.
- The second package was in favor of Diamond Services, consisting of a mortgage on the same land, a $300,000.00 collateral mortgage note, and a pledge of that note to secure Davenport's $300,000.00 Diamond Services hand note.
- Benoit did not sign either of the hand notes executed by International Diving and guaranteed by Davenport.
- Eventually, International Diving and Davenport defaulted on both hand notes.
Procedural Posture:
- In November 1994, MC Bank recovered $192,734.00 by seizing and selling certain assets of International Diving.
- International Diving then filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.
- In December 1996, MC Bank filed for executory process in Acadia Parish on its $350,000.00 collateral mortgage note, attempting to seize and sell Benoit's 410.92-acre tract.
- In May 1997, MC Bank assigned all its rights in the MC Bank hand note, the MC Bank collateral mortgage note, and its executory process petition against Benoit to Diamond Services.
- Substituted as party plaintiff, Diamond Services caused Benoit's tract to be sold, netting $116,157.28, which was applied to the outstanding balance on the MC Bank collateral mortgage note.
- Diamond Services filed a supplemental petition against Benoit for a deficiency judgment on the MC Bank collateral mortgage note.
- Separately, Diamond Services filed a petition against Benoit in Lafayette Parish on its own $300,000.00 collateral mortgage note.
- Both lawsuits were consolidated in Acadia Parish.
- In her answer to the lawsuits, Benoit denied personal liability and asserted several affirmative defenses; she also filed a reconventional demand against Diamond Services for fraud, which the district court dismissed in July 1998 by sustaining Diamond Services' exception of No Cause of Action.
- Diamond Services and Benoit both filed motions for summary judgment.
- In July 1999, the trial court (district court) denied Diamond Services' motion and granted Benoit's motion, finding that Benoit was not personally liable on either collateral mortgage note due to "mutual error" regarding the intent of the parties.
- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It affirmed the trial court's finding of mutual error regarding the MC Bank collateral mortgage note but remanded for a determination of whether Diamond Services was a holder in due course. It reversed the finding of mutual error regarding the Diamond Services collateral mortgage note, concluding any error was unilateral, and held that Benoit, as the maker, was personally liable for the debt secured by the Diamond Services collateral mortgage note, limited to the lesser of the note's face amount or the hand note amount. It also reversed the dismissal of Benoit's reconventional demand for fraud and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted Benoit's writ application to resolve a conflict among the circuits regarding whether the maker of a collateral mortgage note pledged to secure the indebtedness of a third party is personally liable on the collateral mortgage note beyond the value of the mortgaged property.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the maker of a collateral mortgage note personally liable beyond the value of the mortgaged property when the collateral mortgage note is pledged to secure the debt of a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Calogero
No, the maker of a collateral mortgage note is not personally liable beyond the value of the mortgaged property when the collateral mortgage note is pledged to secure the debt of a third party, absent some additional agreement. The Court explained that a collateral mortgage is a unique "hybrid" security device developed by practitioners to secure revolving lines of credit and future advances, not to create a direct personal debt by the maker of the collateral mortgage note itself. The collateral mortgage note is not a "pure" or "separate" debt instrument; it represents a "fictitious debt" pledged as collateral for a "real debt" (the hand note) and has no intrinsic value when standing alone. The enforceability of the collateral mortgage note depends upon its pledge, not on it being a standalone negotiable instrument creating personal liability. To impose personal liability beyond the mortgaged property without an express, written agreement, such as a suretyship, would circumvent Louisiana's strict requirements for suretyship. Neither the adoption of UCC Article 9 nor the legislative codification of collateral mortgages (La.Rev.Stat. 9:5550) altered this customary understanding. Based on equity, justice, reason, and prevailing usages, the long-standing custom in Louisiana is that the maker's liability is limited to the mortgaged property unless an additional, express agreement for personal liability (e.g., a guaranty or co-signing the hand note) is made. The attorney who drafted the documents for the lenders testified he would have required additional documents for personal liability, and the lenders did not request Benoit's financial statements, indicating they did not expect broader personal liability. This aligns with La. Civ.Code art. 3297, Revision Comment (b), which states that a mortgagor securing another's obligations is not personally liable unless they personally undertake them.
Concurring - Justice Victory
Yes, the maker of a collateral mortgage note is personally liable beyond the value of the mortgaged property when the collateral mortgage note is pledged to secure the debt of a third party; however, Justice Victory concurred in the result that Ms. Benoit was not personally liable in this specific case due to mutual error regarding her personal liability. Justice Victory argued that the collateral mortgage notes themselves contained "unconditional promises to pay" specific sums to the bearer, binding the maker "jointly, severally and solidarily, unconditionally and as original promisors." He noted the written pledge agreements explicitly gave the creditor the right to accelerate payment on Benoit's collateral mortgage note and apply proceeds to Davenport's debt, and stated that Benoit "shall remain liable together with Borrower ... on a 'joint and several' or 'solidary' basis." Justice Victory contended that the majority's reliance on "custom" and "equity" inappropriately overrode clear contractual language. He highlighted that many commentators and a majority of prior Louisiana appellate cases supported the view that the collateral mortgage note creates personal liability and that La. Rev. Stat. 9:5550(1) defines a collateral mortgage as securing a "written obligation, such as a collateral mortgage note," implying it is an enforceable obligation. He concluded that transforming an in personam (personal) obligation into an in rem (property-only) obligation solely because it is secured by a mortgage misconstrues the device.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarification on the often-confusing nature of collateral mortgages in Louisiana, establishing a clear rule that the mere execution and pledge of a collateral mortgage note for a third party's debt does not create personal liability for the maker beyond the value of the mortgaged property. The decision emphasizes Louisiana's strict requirement for express, written suretyship to impose personal obligations. This ruling offers significant protection to individuals who offer their property as security, preventing unintended exposure to the full scope of a third party's debt. For lenders, it provides clear guidance: to ensure full personal recourse against the maker of a collateral mortgage note, an explicit, separate agreement (such as a continuing guaranty, co-signing the hand note, or endorsement) is necessary. The case resolves a long-standing conflict among Louisiana's appellate courts, solidifying a consistent interpretation of this unique security device.
