Allen D. H. Blanchard, RRPT d/b/a Radiation Consulting Services VS Cors & Bassett; Sacks, Weston, Smolinsky, Albert & Luber; Sacks & Smith, L.L.C.; and the Law Offices of Stuart H. Smith
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT l l I 2012 CA 0939 ALLEN D BLANCHARD RRPT H a b d RADIATION CONSULTING SERVICES VERSUS CORS BASSETT SACKS WESTON SMOLINKSY ALBERT SACKS LUBER SMITH L AND C THE LAW OFFICES OF STUART H SMITH On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 477 Section 24 896 Honorable R Michael Caldwell udge Presiding erry Attorney for Appellant Plaintiff Allen D Blanchard RRPT H a b d Radiation Consulting Services F Baton Pepper Rouge LA Erick Y Attorneysfor Miyagi 7ohn Stewart Tharp Taylor Porter Brooks Appellee Defendant Phillips P L Cors Bassett L C Baton Rouge LA BEFORE PARRO HUGHES AND WELCH 7J udgment rendered 1 1 2 3 Justice efferson D Hughes III is serving as judge ad hoc by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court PARRO 7 The plaintiff Allen D Blanchard RRPT d Radiation Consulting Services H bJa Mr Blanchard appeals C L Cors a judgment in favor of a defendant law firm Cors Bassett Bassett dismissing his action on open account with prejudice For the following reasons we affirm the trial court judgment and issue this opinion in s accordance with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2 8 A 16 The factual and procedural background of this case is set forth in this court s prior opinion Allen D H Blanchard RRPT d Radiation Consulting Services v Cors a b Bassett et al 09 La App lst Cir 9 unpublished and will not be 2236 10 8 repeated in full here In that opinion we vacated in part a trial court judgment to the s ent e that it dismissed Mr Blanchard claim on open account against Cors Bassett We remanded the matter to the trial court 1 to allow Mr Blanchard to amend his pleadings to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise the issue based on an open account and 2 Cors to afford Bassett an opportunity to file a formal pleading relative to the issue of prescription Id 09 at p 7 After the parties 2236 filed such pleadings and a hearing was held the trial court signed a judgment on October 31 2011 sustaining Cors s Bassett peremptory exception pleading the objectian of prescription and dismissing Mr Blanchard action on open account with s prejudice This appeai followed DISCUSSION An action on an open account under LSA 9 is subjed to liberative S R 2781 prescription of three years LSA art 3494 Pursuant to LSA art 3495 this C 4 C prescription commences to run from the day payment is exigible that is when the debt becomes liquidated and demandable or is judicially enforceable See Ledoux v City of Baton Rouge of East Baton Rouge 99 La 2 755 So 877 879 Parish 2061 00 29 2d Reed v City of Baton Rouge 04 La App lst Cir 5 916 So 174 175 0866 05 6 2d C LSA art 3495 Revision Comments 1983 comment b Black Law Dictionary s 2 9th ed 2009 With regard to suits on open account the three prescriptive year period found in LSA art 3494 generally runs from the date of the last charge C credit entry purchase payment or similar transaction on the account See LoPez v Evans 07 La App lst Cir 6 992 So 547 549 and pertinent cases 1243 08 2d referenced parties therein However when the open account arrangement between the involves the rendition of professional services as in this case other considerations may influence the date a debt becomes exigible See Evans Graves Enaineers Inc v Cunard 95 La App lst Cir 12 665 So 794 796 1035 95 15 2d writ denied 96 La 3 669 So 419 see also Mid Analytical Labs 0211 96 15 2d South Inc Jones v Odom Spruill Davis LLP 40 La App 2nd Cir 9 912 089 05 23 2d So 101 106 writ denied 05 La 4 926 So 513 08 2487 06 17 2d A trial court findings of fact on the issue of prescription are subject to the s manifest error wrong standard of review Marin v E Mobil Corp 09 clearly ocon 2368 La 10 48 So 234 244 Stobart v State Dept of Transp and Dev 617 19 3d 45 2d So 880 882 La 1993 This incfudes the factuai determination as to the date on which prescription begins to run See Oracle Oil LLC v EPI Consultants Div of Cudd Pressure Control Inc 11 La App lst Cir 9 77 So 64 70 writ 0151 11 14 3d denied 2248 i1 3d 11 23 La il76 So 1157 If the trial court findings are s reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety an appellate court may not Z Among others the Looez opinion references the following cases Ritchie Grocer Co v Dean 182 La 518 522 162 So 62 63 1935 prescription did not begin to run on an open account until the date of the last credit entry Chrysler Financial Co L v Gene Ducote Automotive L D4 La App C C 12Z3 Sth Cir 3 900 So 119 1Z3 prescription hegan to run from the date of the last charge on OS 1 2d 124 the open account Landreneau v Duolechin 595 So 1230 1232 La App 3rd Cir 1992 prescriptive 2d period for an action on open account ran three years after the last payment on Yne account and Ford Marketing Corp Ford Parts Div v First Auto Parts 308 So 799 801 W App 4th Cir 1975 a suit 2d on open account filed more than three years after the last purchase was barred by the three year prescriptive period 3 In Evans Enqineers Inc an engineering firm filed suit against an apartment deve Graves comptex oper for unpaid engineering services Noting that the engineering firm customarily billed for professional services at a milestone in the project such as approval from a regulatory agency the beginning of construction financing approval or when the project is abandoned this court noted that prescription began to run after the construction project was abandoned and the engineering firm made demand for payment 665 So at 796 2d In Mid Analytical Labs Inc the appellate court noted that the relationship between a soil testing South company and a law firm was not a open account arrangement because the soil testing company typical did not regularty bilf the iaw Firm and there was no evidence of any agreement for payment on a periodic regular basis Thus the court found summary judgment was inappropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact as to when prescription began to accrue 912 So at 107 2d 08 3 reverse those findings even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact it would have weighed the evidence differently Stobart 617 So at 882 2d 83 At the conclusion of the hearing on Cors s Bassett exception of prescription the trial court determined that Mr Blanchard action on open account had prescribed s The trial court found that as of April 30 1997 Mr Blanchard had notice that 1 Cors Bassett would make no further payments to him and 2 a court order had previously been issued in the underlying litigation requiring that Mr Blanchard return all soil samples in his possession within thirty days of the date of that order According to the trial court even if thirty days from the April 30 1997 notice were allowed Mr Blanchard should have returned the soil samples by May 30 1997 and that c learly by May 30th 1997 Mr Blanchard was on notice that his services were certainly no longer wanted or going to be paid by Bassett Cors Based on these factual findings the trial court concluded prescription began to run at the very latest on May 30 1997 and that Mr Blanchard suit not filed until November 3 2000 was prescribed s After a thorough review of the evidence applicable law and the parties arguments on appeal we find there was a reasonable factual basis for the trial court s determination that Mr Blanchard action on open account s against Cors Bassett was prescribed The record indisputably demonstrates that the professional services relationship between the parties ended and thus Mr Blanchard sdemand for payment became exigible more than three years before he filed suit against Cors Bassett We specifically find no merit in Mr Blanchard arguments that prescription only began s to run on February 3 1998 or that the doctrine of contra non valentum is applicable in this case Therefore we conclude the trial court did not err in sustaining Cors s Bassett exception of prescription and dismissing Mr Blanchard ssuit with prejudice 5 Mr Blanchard sattorney made demand for payment to Cors response by letter dated April 30 1997 Cors Bassett by letter dated April 8 1997 In Bassett notified Mr Blanchard sattorney that f or reasons of which Mr Blanchard is keenly aware we are not obligated to pay him further on any invoices 6 The court order requiring that Mr Blanchard return the soil samples is not in the appellate record 4 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the trial court October 31 2011 judgment is s affirmed in accordance with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2 8 A 2 16 All costs of this appeal are assessed to pfaintifF Allen D Blanchard H RRPT d Radiation Consulting Services a b AFFIRMED 5
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.
