T&T Investment Corp VS Watkins, APC CPA and Jacob Watkins

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT T& T INVESTMENT CORP 2021 NO. VERSUS CW PAGE WATKINS, APC CPA AND JACOB DECEMBER 0322 1 30, OF 3 2021 WATKINS In Re: Watkins, APC BEFORE: of GUIDRY, WRIT GRANTED. Judgment Watkins, is Watkins, the APC defendants T& T the with Society 9: 5604( A) to the of alleged been in in within omission, of or or act, to the of are 1st or such latest a 916 is in of his The School L. L. C., right Society seek to such an shall have one actions date of three and accountant Credit judicial the within year Pursuant act, should Union 2004- 1227 ( 256. proper that from the against Employees 252, and or one or brought date events years suits filing with the s exercise to Alford, all three any engagement be filed actions in any or alleged the in R. S. tort, an the discovered to state, upon on Service against of from and La. shall of year as et seq., for errors jurisdiction neglect. So. 2d out Public Revenue this service one applicable Ascension claimant' s by Jacob against income based date within or debt of arising the even 37: 101, damages whether neglect Harper & 6/ 10/ 05), Cir. filed and agreement. laws competent within omission, Salter, claimant' to be v. La. App. La. R. S. deemed as cognizance of claim. If Deloitte LLP 2018 10/ 8/ La. manifest Tax 5/ 16/ 18), burden prescription at evident the on v. WL 18), of or the Amedisys, proof on unpublished), face the While legal The writ fact are denied, prescription the raising exceptor exception. of the of concepts, exceptions peremption. of hearing on the peremptory reviewed standard of wrong 2016- 1380 ( La. App, Inc., 794. similar trial the findings s error -clearly So. 3d but at court' 2540437 ( 253 different proof introduced district the the under is evidence exception, the act, peremptive. 37: 105, are the limitations Provost, Amended claims defendants for the from however, filed at time JJ. Certified Internal action accounting or omission, alleged year 2021 its R. S. the year from the date of such discovery, be 9, peremption canceled otherwise, year neglect, of 37: 71, court one La. against under R. S. a discovered; shall Court, PENZATO, Accountant filed installment no professional filed venue that contract, provide unless to payment licensed duly defined as AND Louisiana of amount resulting provides accountant breach incorrect installment to pursuant District March s Public Corp., pursuant the an missing court' exception Society") 2018, asserting claims reporting HOLDRIDGE, Certified Investment Accountants (" July 25, Judicial for applying reversed. Plaintiff, firm WELCH, Watkins, 187922. No. district The denied which defendants, 32nd Terrebonne, McDONALD, Jacob and writs, supervisory Parish CPA pleadings ( or same the bears However, and if in this review. 1st Cir. 2018- 0993 peremption rules govern objections the of burden of peremption is case, on the STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 2021 No. CW Page face the of to shifts the to submitted claims to plaintiff the the show is of the Society), action 0322 2 3 burden perempted. not Id. With claim filed of perempted by if peremption, alleged act, whether or App. regard states that principal she be defendants did in result from agreement June 5, due 2017 on its it that notice the immediately" held that there 2008 2065927 ( 9/ 19/ 08), 992 in prescription to settlement, amount is there or particular For legal tax be that yet that requirement case they be fully incurred, quantum, before the plaintiff has the fact quantum that or a 2/ 08), the the an of a exact irrelevant, damages of incurred right of attorney that was La. realm acceptance determined the 5/ 2008- 1177 ( in of the See claim. Cir. alleging consequences not a denied, decided was payment. consistently of damages be amount App. dated interest overdue of the installment and 1st that would plaintiff have aware writ held was the La. malpractice court liability no that should which the of the and tax of certain a advise the courts email, that note a that claim, payments terminate to him argued penalties of cases, 2007- 1697 ( 945, to the Society This We Service for that after and missed taxes, unpublished), So. 2d R. S. Coyle, informed interest. result plaintiff La. identical Billy Plaintiff intent requirement Plaisance, v. WL failed a no denied, the with payment. year late the a of 2002- 1292 writ defendants and face. Revenue malpractice is before certain Delahaye as in of date the Co., emailed one and of outlines regardless contains filed 2017, than Internal of the of years applying against installment penalties a which Nevertheless, as perempted included evidence 13, more inform was period a 380, which defendants Society not claim As Ins. 377, claim 2017 additional this from 1057 ( claim the June on Auto. So. 2d their 9: 5604). plaintiff' s of in was three year court, which peremption, one agents, R. S. payment, find period. So. 2d February the to appears La. plaintiff, with 845 employee the missed filed an of to to installment 845 insurance to language With by Mutual 2/ 14/ 03), return, within within Farm 5/ 30/ 03), missed filed not filed State applicable tax we peremptive extinguished Cir. La. peremption is was v. 1st 2003- 0733 ( 9: 5606, is it Bel year claim it income Accordingly, three a not discovery. 2015. 19, the district the included by defendants 2014 s debt canceled of to for defendants against amount presented income plaintiff' May on evidence the claim s incorrect the from arose preparation La. plaintiff' reporting the based on income, the to regard in errors in be some of action. reasons, we find that the district court was manifestly erroneous in concluding that there were issues as to discovery of the acts asserted by plaintiff which precluded the granting peremption plaintiff, Watkins, exception filed T& APC dismissed. foregoing T by of Investment Certified The peremption. defendants is Corp., Public granted, asserted Accountant and and exception the against Jacob claims of of defendants, Watkins, are STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT No. 2021 CW Page 3 0322 of 3 JMG im AHP Welch application COURT OF and Holdridge, on the APPEAL, IZEJ). / ww FOR CL RK THE showing made. FIRST L:w DEPUTY OF JJ., CIRCUIT COURT COURT dissent and would deny the writ

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.