forfeiture clause in Louisiana

2014Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14 ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/23/05) , 899 So.2d 97 . [[Image here]] Concerning the standard of appellate review of a forfeiture claim, the court in Rowan Cos., Inc. v. Powell, 02-1894, 02-1895, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/2/03), 858 So.2d 676, 680 , writ denied, 03-2177 (La.l1/14/03), 858 So.2d 425 (citations omitted), stated: The determination of whether there is a false statement or representation willfully made for the purpose of obtaining any benefit or payment involves inherently factual det

2013Concerning the standard of appellate review of a forfeiture claim, the court in Rowan Cos., Inc. v. Powell, 02-1894, 02-1895, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/2/03), 858 So.2d 676, 680 , writ denied, 03-2177 (La.11/14/03), 858 So.2d 425 (citations omitted), stated: The determination of whether there is a false statement or representation willfully made for the purpose of obtaining any benefit or payment involves inherently factual determinations and, thus, this court’s review of those findings by the WCJ is governed by 110the manifest error standard.

2014Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14 ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/23/05) , 899 So.2d 97 . [[Image here]] Concerning the standard of appellate review of a forfeiture claim, the court in Rowan Cos., Inc. v. Powell, 02-1894, 02-1895, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/2/03), 858 So.2d 676, 680 , writ denied, 03-2177 (La.l1/14/03), 858 So.2d 425 (citations omitted), stated: The determination of whether there is a false statement or representation willfully made for the purpose of obtaining any benefit or payment involves inherently factual det

2013Concerning the standard of appellate review of a forfeiture claim, the court in Rowan Cos., Inc. v. Powell, 02-1894, 02-1895, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/2/03), 858 So.2d 676, 680 , writ denied, 03-2177 (La.11/14/03), 858 So.2d 425 (citations omitted), stated: The determination of whether there is a false statement or representation willfully made for the purpose of obtaining any benefit or payment involves inherently factual determinations and, thus, this court’s review of those findings by the WCJ is governed by 110the manifest error standard.

1999Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 344 So.2d 1353 (La.1976), the Supreme Court held that a forfeiture clause in the employer's profit-sharing plan was manifestly unjust where the employer's unilateral act, discharging the employee without cause, prevented fulfillment of the condition required for the employee's rights to vest in the benefits.

1985Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 344 So.2d 1353 (La.1976), the court held that a forfeiture clause in the employer's profit-sharing plan was manifestly unjust where the unilateral act of the employer prevented the fulfillment of the condition to the employee's receipt of the benefits.

1923Baird v. Atlas Oil Co., 146 La. 1102 , 84 South. 366 ; Murray v. Barnhart, 117 La. 1023 , 42 South. 489 ; Jennings-Heywood Oil Syndicate v Houssiere-Latreille Oil Co., 119 La. 793 , 44 South. 481 .

1923Baird v. Atlas Oil Co., 146 La. 1102 , 84 South. 366 ; Murray v. Barnhart, 117 La. 1023 , 42 South. 489 ; Jennings-Heywood Oil Syndicate v Houssiere-Latreille Oil Co., 119 La. 793 , 44 South. 481 .

2013In further support of its holding, the Supreme Court in Giles noted that in 1997, it approved Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 804(b)(6), entitled “Forfeiture by wrongdoing,” which applies only when the defendant “engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.” The Court noted that it previously described this evidentiary provision as a rule “which codifies the forfeiture doctrine.” Id. at 367 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)).

2013In further support of its holding, the Supreme Court in Giles noted that in 1997, it approved Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 804(b)(6), entitled “Forfeiture by wrongdoing,” which applies only when the defendant “engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.” The Court noted that it previously described this evidentiary provision as a rule “which codifies the forfeiture doctrine.” Id. at 367 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)).

1962LSA-R.S. 19:6 and 7 are equally mandatory that the failure to answer or plead within ten days is considered a forfeiture and waiver by defendant of all pleas other than quantum and damages." Other decisions indicating the mandatory nature of the requirement, under the general expropriation law, that an answer be filed within ten days are State v. Landry, 219 La. 721 , 53 So.2d 908 and Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Dileo, La.App., 79 So.2d 150 .

1959LSA-R.S. 19:6, 19:7.” In City of Gretna v. Mitchell, La.App., 64 So.2d 873, 874 , we said: “LSA-R.S. 19:6 and 7 are equally mandatory that the failure to answer or plead within ten days is considered a forfeiture and waiver by defendant of all pleas other than quantum and damages.” The Court of Appeal for the First Circuit in Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Dileo, 79 So.2d 150, 154 , said: “All defendants having filed answer twenty-seven days or more after service, the trial court properly ruled that the sole issue before it was that of quantum, which is the sole issue before us on appeal.”

1923Baird v. Atlas Oil Co., 146 La. 1102 , 84 South. 366 ; Murray v. Barnhart, 117 La. 1023 , 42 South. 489 ; Jennings-Heywood Oil Syndicate v Houssiere-Latreille Oil Co., 119 La. 793 , 44 South. 481 .

1923Baird v. Atlas Oil Co., 146 La. 1102 , 84 South. 366 ; Murray v. Barnhart, 117 La. 1023 , 42 South. 489 ; Jennings-Heywood Oil Syndicate v Houssiere-Latreille Oil Co., 119 La. 793 , 44 South. 481 .

2015See Morris v. Textron Marine and Land Systems, Inc., 14-0293 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/24/14) , 155 So.3d 21, 23 , writ denied, 14-2223 (La.1/9/15), 157 So.3d 1108 ; Johnson v. Pinnergy, Ltd., 46,188 (La.App, 2 Cir. 4/13/11), 63 So.3d 302 ; Edwards v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc., 14-871 (La.

2014Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14 ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/23/05) , 899 So.2d 97 . [[Image here]] Concerning the standard of appellate review of a forfeiture claim, the court in Rowan Cos., Inc. v. Powell, 02-1894, 02-1895, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/2/03), 858 So.2d 676, 680 , writ denied, 03-2177 (La.l1/14/03), 858 So.2d 425 (citations omitted), stated: The determination of whether there is a false statement or representation willfully made for the purpose of obtaining any benefit or payment involves inherently factual det

2014Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water District., 02-439 (La.1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14 ; Olander v. Schillilaegh’s, 04-725 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/23/05) , 899 So.2d 97 . [[Image here]] Concerning the standard of appellate review of a forfeiture claim, the court in Rowan Cos., Inc. v. Powell, 02-1894, 02-1895, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/2/03), 858 So.2d 676, 680 , writ denied, 03-2177 (La.l1/14/03), 858 So.2d 425 (citations omitted), stated: The determination of whether there is a false statement or representation willfully made for the purpose of obtaining any benefit or payment involves inherently factual det

2013In further support of its holding, the Supreme Court in Giles noted that in 1997, it approved Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 804(b)(6), entitled “Forfeiture by wrongdoing,” which applies only when the defendant “engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.” The Court noted that it previously described this evidentiary provision as a rule “which codifies the forfeiture doctrine.” Id. at 367 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)).

2013In further support of its holding, the Supreme Court in Giles noted that in 1997, it approved Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 804(b)(6), entitled “Forfeiture by wrongdoing,” which applies only when the defendant “engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.” The Court noted that it previously described this evidentiary provision as a rule “which codifies the forfeiture doctrine.” Id. at 367 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 (citing Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)).

2013State v. Bell, 10-583 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10) , 48 So.3d 1253 ; State v. Property Located at # 70 Oakland Street, 98-929 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/99) , 727 So.2d 1240, 1244 .

2013State v. Bell, 10-583 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10) , 48 So.3d 1253 ; State v. Property Located at # 70 Oakland Street, 98-929 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/99) , 727 So.2d 1240, 1244 .

2007Chaisson v. Philip Services Corp., 05-340 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05) , 917 So.2d 514 .

2004In Bergeron v. Cajun Kwik Mart, Inc., 03-675, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/03), 858 So.2d 748, 750 , this court refused to disturb the WCJ's rejection of a forfeiture defense, stating: "While there is some discrepancy between [the plaintiff's] testimony and what is depicted on the surveillance video, we, as did the [WCJ], find that these discrepancies do not equate to fraud, but rather reflect on the extent of her disability." Similarly, in Palmer v. Schooner Petroleum Services, 02-397 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/27/02) , 834 So.2d 642 , writ denied, 03-367 (La.4/21/03), 841 So.2d 802 , we found that v

2004In Bergeron v. Cajun Kwik Mart, Inc., 03-675, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/03), 858 So.2d 748, 750 , this court refused to disturb the WCJ's rejection of a forfeiture defense, stating: "While there is some discrepancy between [the plaintiff's] testimony and what is depicted on the surveillance video, we, as did the [WCJ], find that these discrepancies do not equate to fraud, but rather reflect on the extent of her disability." Similarly, in Palmer v. Schooner Petroleum Services, 02-397 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/27/02) , 834 So.2d 642 , writ denied, 03-367 (La.4/21/03), 841 So.2d 802 , we found that v

2004In Bergeron v. Cajun Kwik Mart, Inc., 03-675, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/03), 858 So.2d 748, 750 , this court refused to disturb the WCJ's rejection of a forfeiture defense, stating: "While there is some discrepancy between [the plaintiff's] testimony and what is depicted on the surveillance video, we, as did the [WCJ], find that these discrepancies do not equate to fraud, but rather reflect on the extent of her disability." Similarly, in Palmer v. Schooner Petroleum Services, 02-397 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/27/02) , 834 So.2d 642 , writ denied, 03-367 (La.4/21/03), 841 So.2d 802 , we found that v

2002In Scott v. Apgar, 113 So.2d at 460 , the Supreme Court rejected a forfeiture clause that entitled the seller to retain all moneys received as liquidated damages.

2002The court relied on its earlier decision in Heeb v. Codifer & Bonnabel, Inc., 162 La. 139 , 110 So. 178 (1926), explaining: The law does not sanction the imposition of punitory or exemplary damages by contract or otherwise, but only such *191 as are in their nature and character compensatory. . . . .

2002The court relied on its earlier decision in Heeb v. Codifer & Bonnabel, Inc., 162 La. 139 , 110 So. 178 (1926), explaining: The law does not sanction the imposition of punitory or exemplary damages by contract or otherwise, but only such *191 as are in their nature and character compensatory. . . . .

2001Hoy v. Gilbert, 98-1565 (La.3/2/99), 754 So.2d 207 .

1999State v. One (1) 1991 Pontiac Trans Sport Van, 98-64 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/9/98) , 716 So.2d 446 .

1999State v. One (1) 1991 Pontiac Trans Sport Van, 98-64 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/9/98) , 716 So.2d 446 .

1993App. 5th Cir.1991), and State v. Kennedy, 581 So.2d 756 (La.App. 5th Cir.1991), the record was void of evidence that any evidence was entered at a forfeiture hearing.

1981In Paulet v. Pirello, 353 So.2d 1307 (La. 1977), our Supreme Court held that even though the note is not usurious on its face, if subsequent payments in fact and by agreement of the parties constitute usurious interest, then the forfeiture rule applies.

1964State Through Department of Highways v. Jackson Brewing Co., La.App. (4th Cir.), 146 So.2d 504 and cases cited therein.

1963App. 547 ; Columbia Weighing Machine Company v. Balter, 9 La.App. 326 , 120 So. 397 ; Tremont Lumber Company v. Robinson Lumber Company, 160 La. 254 , 107 So. 101 .” The only factual difference, which in our opinion, is immaterial, is that in Borie v. Smither, the election to exercise the forfeiture clause occurred long after the contractual relationship had terminated, whereas in the instant case the attempt to exercise the forfeiture clause was made after an election to terminate with notice and without forfeiture, but prior to the end of the thirty day notice period.

1963App. 547 ; Columbia Weighing Machine Company v. Balter, 9 La.App. 326 , 120 So. 397 ; Tremont Lumber Company v. Robinson Lumber Company, 160 La. 254 , 107 So. 101 .” The only factual difference, which in our opinion, is immaterial, is that in Borie v. Smither, the election to exercise the forfeiture clause occurred long after the contractual relationship had terminated, whereas in the instant case the attempt to exercise the forfeiture clause was made after an election to terminate with notice and without forfeiture, but prior to the end of the thirty day notice period.