KEITH VERRETT Vs. GEOFFREY ALSTON AND G.E. ALSTON BUILDING AND REMODELING CO., L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION KEITH VERRETT * NO. 2010-CA-1537 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL GEOFFREY ALSTON AND G.E. ALSTON BUILDING AND REMODELING CO., L.L.C. * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM FIRST CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS NO. 2009-51237, SECTION “B” Honorable Ranord Darensburg, Judge Pro Tempore ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Michael E. Kirby, Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Daniel L. Dysart) Lori L. Dunn P. O. Box 51917 New Orleans, LA 70151 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Ray A. Bright LAW OFFICE OF RAY A. BRIGHT, L.L.C. 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 2215 New Orleans, LA 70112 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, GEOFFREY ALSTON REVERSED MARCH 16, 2011 In this appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt of court and imposing judicial interest, attorney’s fees, and costs against him. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the ruling of the trial court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Keith Verrett filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office against Geoffrey Alston and G.E. Alston Building and Remodeling Co., L.L.C. (collectively, “Alston”), regarding a claim for renovations that were not satisfactorily completed. The parties agreed to mediate. After mediation, they entered into a settlement agreement, the terms of which called for Alston to pay to Verrett the sum of $3,500.00 in two installments of $1,750.00, due on February 28, 2009 and March 28, 2009. The settlement agreement set forth that the agreement was a … “final and enforceable contract.” When Alston failed to make the payments as called for in the mediation agreement, Verrett filed a Petition to Enforce Settlement Agreement and, subsequently, a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Petition. The First City Court found that there was an 1 enforceable settlement agreement, and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on October 15, 2009 in the amount of $3,500.00. Alston paid Verrett half of the amount of the judgment, $1,750.00, on the day judgment was rendered. The judgment was signed on October 29, 2009, and the balance remaining was to be tendered to plaintiff on or before November 15, 2009. Alston failed to make the final payment. Verrett filed a Motion for Contempt, attaching the original judgment, on February 12, 2010. Alston’s attorney did not accept service of the contempt motion; therefore, on March 23, 2010, Verrett filed and was granted a Motion to Continue, asking the court for additional time to have Alston personally served. The contempt hearing was set for April 27, 2010. At the hearing, Alston admitted that he did not pay the balance of the judgment on or before November 15, 2009. The trial court entered a judgment against Alston holding him in contempt for failing to pay the balance of the judgment and ordering him to pay judicial interest on the balance of the judgment, all court costs and attorney’s fees of $350.00. Defendant subsequently filed this appeal. ISSUE PRESENTED As the parties stipulated, at this time, the entire judgment amount of $3,500.00 has been paid. The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding the defendant in contempt and ordering court costs, interest and attorney’s fees for the defendants’ failure to pay the judgment. 2 LAW AND ANALYSIS The plaintiff Verrett correctly filed a Petition to Enforce the Settlement that was reached in mediation. The trial court properly ruled to reduce the settlement agreement to a money judgment, but had no authority to set forth when the amount would be paid. After the judgment was rendered and the applicable delays expired, Verrett had the right to enforce the judgment as provided by law. The proper procedure to enforce the judgment would be accordance with the guidelines set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 2291 et seq. dealing with executory proceedings, i.e. , a judgment debtor rule followed by a writ of fieri facias. Instead, Verrett instituted a summary proceeding for contempt. The trial court had no authority to enforce the payment of a money judgment through its contempt powers. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. REVERSED 3
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.
