Aurora Casket Company VS Hall Davis & Sons Funeral Services, Ltd.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
r NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF L4UISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA D 115 AURORA CASKET COMPANY VERSUS HALL DAVIS SONS FUNERAL SERVICES LTD Judgment Rendered June 11 ZOlO Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket Number C549607 Honorable Todd W Hernandez Judge Presiding Richard L Crawford Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Plaintiff Appelle Aurora Casket Company Henry D Olinde Jr Counsel for Defendant Appellant Victor R Loraso III Hall Davis Baton Rouge LA Sons Funeral Services Ltd a BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WHIPPLE J Defendant appeals the trial court judgment which awarded plaintiff a sum s due on an open account for the purchase of caskets For th following reasons we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In July 2005 Hall Davis a licensed mortician embalmer and funeral director and his wife Cecile Davis began operating a funeral home business in Baton Roug under the Davis name Hall Davis Sons Funeral Services Ltd Hall n an effort to stock the showroom floor for the opening of the funeral home Mr Davis ordered caskets from plaintiff Aurora Casket Company Aurora and spoke with Bob Cargo an Aurora representative According to Mr Davis the oral agreement between Hall Davis and Aurora was that the caskets for the showroom floor would be provided on a consignment basis and new caskets would be purchased for customers as needed for funerals However billing problems developed when Aurora charged Hall Davis for the showroom caskets on a 90 payment plan The parties attempted to resolve day their dispute regarding the consigned caskets and Aurora issued credits to the Hall Davis orte account During that time the parties continued to transact business with another but disputes about the billing persisted Specifically the Davises believed that there were ongoing billing discrepancies and excessive billing and in certain months that Hall Davis was charged for more caskets than the number of funerals it handled in those particular months Because the parties were unable to resolve their disputes as to the account balance Aurora filed a on Open Account on November l7 2006 Petition contending that despite amicable demand Hall Davis had not paid the past due amount of 2S owed to Aurora Thus Aurora sought judgment in its favor 25 84b for this amount together with legal interest attorney fees equal to 25 of the s 2 principal and interest and costs Hall Davis reconvened contending that it had paid Aurora 8 in excess of the amounts due and that it was entitled to 33 928 judgment in its favor refunding the overpayment Following a bench trial the trial court found that Aurora was owed 00 b4 24 but that Hall Davis was entitled to a credit of 8 After adding 00 92 25 interest to these amounts the trial court concluded that Aurora was owed 00 330 32 and Hall Davis was entitled ta a credit of 00 160 11 In accordance with its findings the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Aurora and against Hall Davis in the amount of 21 with each party to bear its own costs 00 170 From this judgment Hall Davis appeals DISCUSSIQN In its sole assignment of error Hall Davis contends that the trial court erred in finding that Aurora was ow a total of 32 where Aurora records d 00 220 s were erroneous incorrect unreliable and did not satisfy Aurora en of proof sburd Thus the primary question presented herein is the sufficiency of the evid in nc support of Aurora sclaim In proving an open account the plaintiff must first prove the account by showing that the record of the account was kept in the course of business and by introducing supporting testimony regarding Stiles v its accuracy 0812 an 081 Fa 95 l 95 La App l s Deutsch Kerri an Cir 12 b5 So 2d 1316 9S 15 1320 writ denied 96 La 3 S 69 So 2d 418 Jacobs Chiropractic 0194 l96 Clinic v Holloway 589 So 2d 31 34 La App 1 Cir 1991 Once a prima facie case has been established by a plaintiff the burden shifts to the debtor to creditor prove the inaccuracy of the account or to prove that the debtor is entitled to certain credits The amount due on an account is a question of fact which may not be disturbed absent manifest error Deutsch Kerri an Jacobs Chiropractic Clinic 5 So 2d at 34 9 3 Stiles 665 So 2d at 1320 At trial Aurora introduced monthly statements from June 2005 through September 2Q06 for the Hall Davis account as well as a spreadsheet detailing all activity on the Hall Davis account since its inception including purchases and credits Dennis Dreyer Aurora credit and risk manager testified as to the billing s on this account Dreyer testified that puarsuant to the business relationship between Aurora and Hall Davis Aurora would ship caskets to Hall Davis and record the sale contemporaneously as the merchandise was shipped out He further testified that Au sent Hall Davis monthly stat that were generated in the course ora ments of Aurora business and listed the balance due on the account based on the s account were activity that month and introduced into evidence any credits for that month The statements also Dreyer further testified that based on Aurora s business recoards generated in the course of its business Hall Davis owed Aurora 46 25 on the open account Based on this testimony and evidence we agree that Aurora established a prima facie case and made th necessary showing that it was owed a balance on the Ha11 Davis account Thus the burden then shifted to Hall Davis to prove any inaccuracies in the account or its entitlement to any credits See Deutsch Kerri an Stiles b5 So 2d at 132p Jacobs Chiropractic Clinic 589 So 2d at 34 Freiber v R213 So 2d 104 106 La App 1 Cir 1968 mbert In support of its contention that Aurora records should be rejected as s inconsistent and inaccurate Hall Davis notes that the amount Aurora represented as the account balance in its July 24 2006 demand letter differed from the amount Aurora contended was due on the account in a subs August 22 2006 quent demand letter Additionally Hall Davis contends that the Aurora records Dreyer acknowledged that the balance due as shown on the spreadsheet was slightly more than the balance Aurora was seeking in this suit but the difference was a mere 3 cents 4 reflecting that Hall Davis was billed for 199 caskets conflicts with Hall Davis s own records which indicate that it should have only been billed for 176 caskets As to Hall Davis first argument regarding the difference in the amount s demanded in the July 24 2006 and August 22 2006 demand letters it is clear from a review of the monthly invoices that there were further business transactions between the parties following the July 24 200b date Moreover when questioned about the diffearence in the amounts demanded in the two letters Dreyer t stified that the July 24 2006 letter would have been generated around July 15 2006 and that there were other credits and bills applied to the account following that date Thus the fact that the amount demanded differed does not support Hall Davis s claim that Aurora records were so inaccurate as to constitute insuffcient proof of s its claim Additionally with regard to Hall Davis assertion that according to its s record of funerals performed Aurora billed it for more caskets than should have been billed we note that Hall Davis did not offer any sort of inventory documents indicating the dates caskets were received from Aurora the number of caskets received or any type of comprehensive accounting for caskets received used or d return to Aurora to support this assertion Rather Hall Davis submitted only a handwritten log of some of the funerals it performed during the time period in question with a type ofcasket listed next to the name of the decedent Only eight of the caskets listed in this log are referenced cross by serial number There is In z this log funerals listed in the rst seven months were assigned sequential numbers A review of those numbers indicates that nineteen numbers are missing sequentially When questioned about these missing numbers Mrs Davis stated that the missing numbers could have represented decedents who were cremated decedents who were shipped ta Hall Davis from other locations and were already in a casket or clients who chose to buy caskets from other casket stores Beginning January 6 20p6 the entries no longer bear any sequential numbering Nonetheless the log clearly does not repcesent all funerals ar burials performed by Hall Davis 5 simply no way to ascertain from this log which caskets purportedly were incorrectly charged to the Hall Davis account In making its findings as to the amount owed on the account and any credits due the trial court speciftcally noted that neither party did a remarkable job of record keeping regarding the sale and purchase of the caskets from plaintiff and to defendant Nonetheless considering the testimony and evidence we find no manifest error in the trial court fittding that Aurora carried its burden of s proving that it was owed p0 864 24 on the Hall Davis account Moreover we agree that Hall Davis ailed to present sufficient evidence to establish that it was entitled to a credit greater than the amount awarded by the trial court Ha11 3 Davis alsa attempted to establish that the manthly statements sent ta it were Hawever Dreyer explained that the monthly incomplete and thus inaccurate statements only showed business transactions that were still open at the end of the month and that every credit was not necessarily itemized in the statement but was iracluded in the summation at the end oF the statement A spreadsheet prepared from its contemporaneous business records which was also introduced into evidence at the trial itemized all transactions an the Hall Davis account from its inception on June 21 2005 through November 10 2006 The 4 arnount to which the trial caurt found Aurara proved its entitlement is 25 982 less than the amount sought by Aurora Aurora has not appealed ar araswered the appeal to challenge this finding by the trial court At 5 trial Hall Davis introduced an account reconciliation performed by the Jasper Group a financial consulting firm which purported to demonstrate inaccuracies in the Aurara billing and to suppart Hall Davis claim that it was entitled to a credit of s 33 928 Hawever our review of the evidence and testimony reveals apparent errors in the accaunt recanciliatinn Moreover the report prepared by the Jasper Group admittedly was based solely on the records and information provided ta it by Hall Davis Hall Davis also contended that it was not properly credited for every casket it returned to Aurora However in support of this claim Hall Davis introduced only one log of caskets picked up for return which Hall Davis had Aurora sdistributor sign This document lists eleven caskets picked up on May 19 2006 for return While Hall Davis attempted to establish that it was not properly credited tbr the return of these caskets a review af the invaices credit invoices and spreadsheet of all activity on the account reveals that Hall Davis was credited at one time or another for most af the caskets on the list One casket returned was admittedly not an Aurora casket Another one was identified only as a bronze with tao serial number thus prthis court from brush venting accurately reviewin the records ta establish whether a credit was issued Additionally while Hall Davis contended at trial that it was never issued a credit for a teak casket it returned on that date our review of the credit invaices together with the spreadsheet of all accaunt activity demanstrates that a credit was indeed issued for a teak casket bearing that serial number Thus there was only one casket on the May 19 2006 list that was adequately identitied by serial number for which this court was unable to id a ntify credit Notably as set farth in footnote 4 the amount ta which the trial court found Aurora proved its entitlement is 982 less than the amount sought by Aurora clearly 25 indicating that some type of deduction was made by the trial court Thus we decline to make any further adjustments given the paltry records introduced by Hall Davis herein in support of its claim b Accordingly we find no merit to its arguments on appeal CONCLUSION For the abov and foregoing reasons the August 24 2009 judgment of the trial court is affirmed in its appellant Hall Davis ntirety Costs of this appeal are assessed against Sons Funeral Services Ltd AFFIRMED 7
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.
