Grand Lodge, Benevolent Knights of America v. Murphy Const. Co.
152 La. 123, 1922 La. LEXIS 2865, 92 So. 757 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debtor has the primary right to direct the application of a payment among multiple debts. In the absence of such direction, a creditor may apply the payment to an older, unsecured debt over a newer, secured debt without violating a surety's rights, unless the creditor has knowledge that the funds derive from the secured project and that such an application would constitute a fraud on the surety.
Facts:
- A general contractor entered into a building contract with an owner, with United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (Surety) providing a surety bond for the project.
- The contractor hired subcontractors Holzer (for metal work) and Maurer (for painting) for the bonded project.
- The contractor owed Holzer and Maurer for past-due, unsecured debts from prior, unrelated projects.
- During the current project, the contractor made payments to Holzer and Maurer from his personal bank account, without specifying which debts the payments should cover.
- Holzer and Maurer, who were pressing the contractor for payment on the older debts, applied these payments to those past-due accounts.
- The contractor's payments from the owner under the contract were based on architect's certificates for work and materials already incorporated into the building.
- At the time the contractor paid Holzer and Maurer, their work on the current project had not been substantially incorporated into the building and thus was not the basis for the funds the contractor had received from the owner.
- The contractor later defaulted on the project, leaving Holzer and Maurer unpaid for their work on the bonded project.
Procedural Posture:
- The property owner initiated a concursus proceeding (a type of interpleader) in a Louisiana trial court, naming the contractor, the surety, and various material suppliers.
- The matter was tried before a court-appointed commissioner.
- The commissioner found in favor of suppliers Kenny, Geier Bros., Holzer, and Maurer against the surety.
- The trial judge reviewed the commissioner's report, affirmed the awards for Geier Bros., Holzer, and Maurer, but rejected the claim of Kenny.
- The United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (Surety), as appellant, appealed the trial judge's decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
- Kenny, as appellee, answered the appeal, seeking reinstatement of his claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a creditor violate a surety's rights by applying a contractor's payment, made from general funds without instruction, to an older unsecured debt instead of the debt for the specific project guaranteed by the surety?
Opinions:
Majority - St. Paul, J.
No. A creditor does not violate a surety's rights by applying a contractor's undirected payment to an older unsecured debt, unless the creditor knowingly participates in a fraudulent diversion of funds from the secured project. The court reasoned that under the Louisiana Civil Code, the debtor has the primary right to direct payments. An exception for fraud on a surety only applies when the creditor has actual knowledge of the funds' specific, secured source. Here, the contractor paid with his own checks from general funds, and the subcontractors had no knowledge of the funds' origin nor a duty to inquire. Furthermore, the debts were not 'equally due,' as the older debts were past-due while the project-specific debts were not yet payable, making imputation to the past-due debts appropriate under the Civil Code.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the rules for imputation of payment in the context of construction contracts and suretyships in Louisiana. It reinforces the debtor's primary right to direct payments and narrowly construes the 'fraud' exception that would limit a creditor's ability to apply undirected payments. The ruling firmly places the risk of a contractor's misapplication of general funds on the surety, who is in a better position to monitor the contractor's financial activities, rather than on third-party material suppliers. This precedent protects creditors by allowing them to apply undirected funds to past-due accounts without having to investigate the debtor's finances.
