ANGELA SPIERS d b a ACT DEALER SERVICES v. LORRAINE ROYE AND INTERSTATE MOTORS INC.

This matter comes to us following remand to the trial court for an
evidentiary hearing to supplement the record on the issue of whether the
defendants received proper and adequate notice of trial prior to the date of
trial and rendition ofjudgment Finding that the defendants did not receive
legally adequate notice we vacate the judgment on the merits and remand
this matter for further proceedings Because of that action we pretermit
review of the prior interlocutory judgment denying the defendants motion
to dissolve the sequestration.

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

The underlying facts ofthis litigation and its procedural history are set
fOlih in this court s prior opinion in this matter Spiers v Roye 04 2189 pp
2 5 La App 1st Cir 210 06 927 So 2d 1158 1160 61 set aside in part
on other grounds on en bane rehearing 519 06 We briefly recapitulate
those facts since supplemented on remand The plaintiff Angela Spiers
sued the defendants Lorraine Roye and Interstate Motors Inc alleging the
existence of a joint venture relating to the acquisition and resale of used
automobiles with sharing of the profits Plaintiff obtained two writs of
sequestration of various motor vehicles and other propeliy of Interstate
Motors Inc pending the trial on the merits.

On July 15 2003 defendants original attOlney filed a motion to
enroll as their counsel of record and also filed a formal request for written
notice of trial Defendants unsuccessfully moved to dissolve the writs of
sequestration Following a March 25 2004 telephone status conference
requested by defendants the case was set for a bench trial on June 21 2004
with a final pre trial conference at 100 P M Monday the 21st day of June
2004 A trial order was issued with notice to the pmiies counsel of record.

On March 25 2004 the date of the telephone status conference
defendants original attorney wrote to Ms Roye advising her that as the
result of the conference a trial date of Monday June 21 2004 was
assigned In his letter he fmiher stated:

I must inform you that Judge Bennett has eleven 11
other trials set on this date so there is a very strong possibility
our case will not be heard at this time His next available date
for a bench trial is not until the first week of September 2004.

I will keep you advised as matters progress.

A copy of the trial order was not enclosed with that letter and defendants
received no other notice of the status of the trial from either their attOlney or
the trial comi According to a letter dated July 27 2004 Ms Roye placed
the Mar 25 2004 letter from defendants original attOlney in a very thick
file peliaining to this lawsuit and assuming it was his responsibility to keep
her advised she forgot about the trial date".

On May 18 2004 defendants original attorney filed an ex parte
motion to withdraw from their representation On the same date he wrote to
Ms Roye advising her that he had concluded that he would be unable to
represent her any longer and enclosed a copy of his motion The letter did
not mention the trial date or the date and time of the final pre trial
conference The trial couli signed the order permitting the ex parte
withdrawal on May 26 2004.

The final pretrial conference took place as scheduled on Monday
June 21 2004 and the trial on the merits was ultimately held on June 24
2004 Defendants did not appear for either the conference or the trial.

Following the presentation of testimony and introduction of documentary
evidence the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff with oral reasons for
judgment Its judgment on the merits was signed on June 25 2004
awarding plaintiff 131 580 00 for replacement of investment and
78 000 00 for loss of profit It also lifted the sequestration of motor
vehicles and other items and ordered them turned over to petitioner for
disposal with full credit being given against the money judgment."

On July 12 2004 defendants filed a motion for new trial which was
denied ex parte by the trial court Defendants then instituted a devolutive
appeal assigning seven errors on the part of the trial court 2 We agreed that
the ex parte withdrawal of defendants original attorney was improper but
determined that the record was incomplete on the issue of whether
defendants received adequate notice of trial We thereupon remanded this
matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to supplement the record
Id 04 2189 at pp 13 14 927 So 2d 1158 1166 3 The trial court conducted
the evidentiary hearing on July 24 2006 We now undeliake review of this
matter based upon the record as supplemented.

* * *