Christine E. Neese VS Catherine F. Romero, The Ultimate Handbag Connection, Inc., The Ultimate Handbag Elite, Inc., Handbags & Accessories Warehouse, L.L.C., CR Manufacturing, Inc. and Designs by C, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 11o NO 2009 CA 2016 CHRISTINE E NEESE VERSUS CATHERINE F ROMERO THE ULTIMATE HANDBAG CONNECTION INC THE ULTIMATE HANDBAG ELITE INC HANDBAGS ACCESSORIES WAREHOUSE L C CR MANUFACTURING INC AND DESIGNS BY C INC Judgment Rendered May 7 2010 On Appeal from the 23rd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Ascension State of Louisiana District Court No 88 509 The Honorable Alvin Turner Jr Judge Presiding J L Hymel Counsel for PlaintiffAppellee Michael Reese Davis Christine E Neese Tim P Hartdegen Baton Rouge La Catherine F Romero Lafayette La BEFORE CARTER Appellant Defendant Appearing Pro Se UIDRRY G J C AND P ETTIGREW JJ CARTER C J Appellant Defendant Catherine F Romero seeks review of the district court judgment granting a motion for partial summary judgment in s favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants finding the defendants are indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of 1 00 000 145 plus judicial interest After de novo review we find no error in the trial court judgment See La Code Civ P art 966 Further we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by the issuance of a written opinion and therefore affirm the district court judgment by summary opinion in accordance with s Rule 2 16 6of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal All 2A costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendantappellant Catherine F Romero AFFIRMED 2 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 CA 2016 CHRISTINE E NEESE VERSUS CATHERINE F ROMERO THE ULTIMATE HANDBAG CONNECTION INC THE ULTIMATE HANDBAG ELITE INC HANDBAGS ACCESSORIES WAREHOUSE L CR MANUFACTURING INC AND C DESIGNS BY C INC UIDRY J dissents and assigns reasons GUIDRY J dissenting The trial court stated that it was certifying the partial summary judgment as final because funds have been ordered to be released to plaintiff Christine Neese In R Messinger Inc v Rosenblum 04 1664 p 14 La 3 894 So 2d J 05 2 1113 1122 the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that miscellaneous factors such as economic and solvency considerations are proper factors to be considered by courts in deciding whether to certify a judgment as final As such I do not find the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the judgment as final As to the merits of the appeal I believe the partial summary judgment should be reversed The trial court apparently granted the partial summary judgment based on a statement in Ms Romero deposition wherein she admitted s she owed money to Ms Neese The exact question and testimony presented in the deposition was the following Q And as we sit here today and we are in September of 2008 you do not dispute the fact that 1 million of this lady money went to 2 s you A I do not dispute that the money is owed I have never disputed that fact 1 Yet throughout the deposition Ms Romero stated that the money was loaned as evidenced in part by several promissory notes contained in the record Ms Romero also stated in her deposition that full payment of the amounts loaned was not due and owing and that she had made some payments on the amounts loaned Ms Romero who appeared and responded to the partial motion for summary judgment pro se submitted an affidavit reciting the same contentions that the money had been loaned to her and was not due and owing She also submitted copies of notarized documents and copies of promissory notes along with the affidavit as proof that the money given to her by Ms Neese was at least in part loans She also presented evidence that she had been released from the obligation to repay the loans evidenced by the promissory notes One of the release documents purports to transfer the indebtedness of three promissory notes to a Mr Roy Martel as an assumption of the notes and the other release documents simply release Ms Romero from the obligation to repay the remaining promissory notes in exchange for a partial interest in one of Ms Romero companies s It is further observed that in the language quoted above Ms Romero does not specifically acknowledge that she owes the money but rather simply acknowledges that the money is owed In her answer to Ms Neese petition also filed pro se Ms Romero denied s the allegations that the money given to her by Ms Neese was simply invested but instead she characterized the payments as loans in her responses This evidence seems to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the total sum demanded was actually owed especially since there was no ruling by the trial court invalidating the acts of release And it would appear that a finding that the total amount awarded in the partial summary judgment is owed is contingent in part on the trial court finding that Ms Romero perpetrated a fraud s 2 which finding was not made by the trial court in the context of the partial motion for summary judgment Thus based on the foregoing issues of fact discussed I believe that the partial summary judgment was improperly granted dissent 3 Therefore I respectfully
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
