Avoyelles payday advances, LLC v. Griffin trial that is following the merits, the test court issued a viewpoint wherein

Avoyelles payday advances, LLC v. Griffin trial that is following the merits, the test court issued a viewpoint wherein



Derrick M. Whittington, Whittington Law Practice, Marksville, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Avoyelles Pay Day Loans, LLC. Trista M. Griffin, Bunkie, Los Angeles, for Defendant/Appellee, In Proper Person.

Derrick M. Whittington, Whittington Law Practice, Marksville, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Avoyelles Payday Advances, LLC.

Trista M. Griffin, Bunkie, Los Angeles, for Defendant/Appellee, In Proper Individual.

Court consists of JOHN D. SAUNDERS, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.


Plaintiff, Avoyelles payday advances, LLC (pay day loans), appeals the test court’s judgment and only Defendant, Trista M. Griffin, dismissing its suit for a note that is promissory. For the following reasons, we affirm.


May 20, 2010, Ms. Griffin executed a promissory note with payday advances within the number of $275.00, payable in one single installment of $275.00 on June 7, 2010. Ms. Griffin additionally issued a check to pay day loans for $275.00 dated June 7, 2010. Nevertheless, the check ended up being drafted for a shut account; therefore, there have been inadequate funds to cover the check. Thereafter, pay day loans switched the problem up to the Avoyelles Parish District Attorney’s useless Check Division. The district lawyer’s workplace contacted Ms. Griffin in regards to the check that is worthless. Ms. Griffin then produced re re re payment of $386.08 towards the region lawyer’s workplace on August 23, 2010. Subsequent thereto, the region lawyer’s workplace mailed $305.54 to pay day loans, the receipt of that has been acquiesced by the signature of Francis Keller, the master of payday advances, on 31, 2010 august.

The district lawyer’s office retained $80.54 for a group cost.

May 9, 2013, Payday Loans filed a Petition on Promissory Note seeking the quantities presumably due in the note that is promissory. Ms. Griffin replied the lawsuit doubting pay day loans’ allegations.


In its single project of mistake, payday advances asserts that the test court erred in neglecting to honor it damages and lawyer charges against Ms. Griffin pursuant into the promissory note.


After test from the merits, the test court issued a viewpoint wherein it established the known facts which were proven at test and its own grounds for ruling, saying the following:

The sum of the $ 305.54 went along to the Plaintiff which evidently covered the amount of the check ($275.00), the charge charged by the financial institution ($ 25.00), and one more number of $ 5.54 that will be either interest or perhaps the price of giving a letter that is certified. At any rate, the Court is of this viewpoint that Ms. Griffin will be able to count on the re re re payment that she designed to clear up any financial obligation she owed into the Plaintiff. Through the test, Mr. Francis Keller, President of Avoyelles pay day loans, LLC had been expected by his lawyer what the total amount ended up being which was owed by Ms. Griffin following the re payment of $ 305.54. He had been struggling to show up having a stability. If there is a stability owed, why wait almost three years to aim collection? Ms. Griffin received the sum of the $ 225.00 may 20, 2010, which is why she paid the sum of the $ 386.08 in of 2010 august. The Court is certain that Ms. Griffin could have compensated whatever amount required by the District Attorney for restitution to your Plaintiff. The Court discovers in support of the Defendant and contrary to the Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s price.

Pay day loans argues in its brief to this court that “the district attorney’s involvement in cases like this had been just to eliminate the problem regarding the useless check, maybe perhaps not gathering the total amount on a available account.” Notably, but, the be sure ended up being came back for inadequate funds ended up being for re re payment associated with loan in complete; it had been maybe perhaps perhaps not a payment that is installment. There have been no payments that are remaining be produced by Ms. Griffin to fulfill her payment responsibilities. Undisputedly, the region lawyer ended up being effective in gathering the level of the check, and re re re payment of $305.54 ended up being meant to pay day loans in August 2010.

Conceivably, it had been the date for this fax that Mr. Keller ended up being referencing, erroneously, in the conference that is pretrial the date payment ended up being gotten.

In relation to the data, it absolutely was obviously founded that Ms. Griffin issued a check that is worthless $275.00 which is why she remitted re re re payment totaling $386.08 on August 23, 2010. The region lawyer then forwarded $305.54 to pay day loans, that was acquiesced by Mr. Keller on August 31, 2010. Ms. Griffin had been never told by them again for years that she still owed money to Payday Loans, and she was not contacted. Ms. Griffin later consented, in the pretrial meeting, to cover an extra $150.00 to pay day loans in relation to Mr. Keller’s erroneous representation that pay day loans wasn’t compensated until 2013. The viewpoint regarding the test court accurately sets forth the important points and proof, so we find no manifest mistake in the test court’s judgment in support of Ms. Griffin.

Appellate courts are to use the manifest mistake standard of review towards the test court’s factual determinations. See Granger v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 14–111 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/18/14), 140 So.3d 1283 payday loans in Missouri.

As inferred by the test court, we likewise discover that when payday advances opted to make use of the “strong supply” of this region lawyer to aid it in gathering the total amount it reported ended up being owed by Ms. Griffin, after which accepted the total amount gathered because of the region lawyer’s workplace from Ms. Griffin, pay day loans’ claim against Ms. Griffin had been completely pleased and extinguished. To rule otherwise will allow double-dipping and a collection that is excessive.


When it comes to foregoing reasons, the judgment associated with the test court in support of Trista M. Griffin, dismissing the claims of Avoyelles payday advances, LLC, is affirmed. Expenses with this appeal are evaluated to Avoyelles payday advances, LLC.