TD AUTO FINANCE LLC v. NEAL HIGGS (2025)

The garnishee appeals the trial court's judgment granting the judgment creditor's motion for garnishment accounting and issuing a judgment in favor of the judgment creditor accordingly. For the reasons that follow, we vacate both the judgment before us on appeal and the garnishment judgment on which it was based.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 4, 2020, TD Auto Finance, LLC (TD Auto) obtained a judgment against Neal R. Higgs in Hammond City Court. On January 17, 2023, TD Bank National Association (TD Bank) filed a petition for garnishment in the 21st Judicial District Court, naming as garnishee Trap's Construction and Equipment Services, LLC (Trap's Construction), Higgs’ alleged employer. TD Bank's garnishment petition was accompanied by garnishment interrogatories and a copy of the February 4, 2020 judgment in favor of TD Auto.

Pertinent to this appeal, the garnishment petition requested service on Trap's Construction through its agent for service of process, Matthew Trepagnier. However, the service return documented domiciliary service was made on Trap's Construction through an individual identified as “Catherine Menard” on January 20, 2023, at Trap's Construction's business address.

Subsequently, Trap's Construction provided TD Bank with responses to the garnishment interrogatories. TD Bank filed Trap's Construction's responses to the garnishment interrogatories into the record of this proceeding on February 15, 2023. The trial court signed a garnishment judgment on March 15, 2023.

On February 12, 2024, TD Bank filed a motion for garnishment accounting. Therein, TD Bank requested judgment against Trap's Construction in the amount of any seized but undelivered funds, up to the full amount originally prayed. The motion for garnishment accounting was personally served on Trap's Construction through Mr. Trepagnier on February 20, 2024.

In response to TD Bank's motion for garnishment accounting, Trap's Construction filed several pleadings on March 26, 2024: a memorandum in opposition to TD Bank's motion for garnishment accounting; a motion to reopen the case and annul the garnishment judgment pursuant to LSA-R.S. 13:3923, together with a peremptory exception pleading the objection of no right of action, a declinatory exception pleading the objection of insufficiency of service of process, and a dilatory exception pleading the objection of nonconformity of the petition;¹ and a motion to continue TD Bank's motion for garnishment accounting, which requested that the trial court reset TD Bank's motion and hear it together with Trap's Construction's motions and exceptions.

TD Bank's motion for garnishment accounting and Trap's Construction's motions and exceptions came for hearing on April 1, 2024. The entire record was admitted into evidence at the hearing. After hearing arguments of counsel, the trial court denied Trap's Construction's motion to continue TD Bank's motion for garnishment accounting; denied Trap's Construction's motion to reopen the case and annul the garnishment judgment; denied Trap's Construction's exception of no right of action; denied Trap's Construction's exception of insufficiency of service of process; denied Trap's Construction's exception of nonconformity of the petition; granted TD Bank's motion for garnishment accounting; and granted judgment in favor of TD Bank “as prayed for.”

Following the April 1, 2024 hearing, the trial court signed a May 24, 2024 written judgment which provided, in pertinent part:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, TD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and against TRAP'S CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT SERVICES LLC, in the full sum of $18,442[.00] together with additional interest of 5% from April 1, 2024 plus attorney's fee for the bringing of this motion in the amount of $1,400.00 and for all costs of these proceedings.

Although the trial court's written judgment did not explicitly address Trap's Construction's motions and exceptions, when a trial court judgment is silent as to a claim or demand, it is generally presumed the relief sought was denied. See Barges Unlimited Inc. v. Morgan City Stevedores, LLC, 2022-0691 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/2/23), 367 So.3d 736, 752. Accordingly, the May 24, 2024 judgment implicitly denied Trap's Construction's motions and exceptions.

Trap's Construction has appealed from the May 24, 2024 judgment. On appeal, Trap's Construction assigns the following as error: (1) the trial court erred in denying Trap's Construction's motion to reopen the case and annul the garnishment judgment; (2) the trial court erred in denying Trap's Construction's exception of no right of action; (3) the trial court erred in denying Trap's Construction's exception of insufficiency of service of process; (4) the trial court erred in granting TD Bank's motion for garnishment accounting and issuing the May 24, 2024 judgment; (5) the trial court erred in denying Trap's Construction's exception of nonconformity of the petition.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

A garnishment proceeding is a streamlined legal process for obtaining the seizure of property of a judgment debtor in the hands of a third party. Dads BR1, L.L.C. v. Conner, 2022-0141 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/16/22), 352 So.3d 1012, 1014. Garnishment proceedings generally are governed by LSA-C.C.P. art. 2411, et seq. (general garnishment provisions). Wage garnishment proceedings are also subject to specific provisions set forth in LSA-R.S. 13:3921, et seq. (wage garnishment provisions). See Dads BR1, 352 So.3d at 1014.

Pertinent to this appeal, the general garnishment provisions provide that the sheriff “shall serve upon the garnishee the citation and a copy of the petition and of the interrogatories, together with a notice that a seizure is thereby effected against any property of or indebtedness to the judgment debtor.” LSA-C.C.P. art. 2412(A)(1); Wynnco Construction, LLC v. Bergeron, 2013-0250 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/4/13), 136 So.3d 823, 825. The general garnishment provisions further provide that service “shall be made in the manner provided for service of citation,” unless the garnishee is an individual. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 2412(C). Service of citation or other process on a limited liability company, such as Trap's Construction, is governed by LSA-C.C.P. art. 1266, which provides, in pertinent part:

A. Service of citation or other process on a domestic or foreign limited liability company is made by personal service on any one of its agents for service of process.

B. If the limited liability company has failed to designate an agent for service of process, if there is no registered agent by reason of death, resignation, or removal, or if the person attempting to make service certifies that he is unable, after due diligence, to serve the designated agent, service of the citation or other process may be made by any of the following methods:

(1) Personal service on any manager if the management of the limited liability company is vested in one or more managers or if management is not so vested in managers, then on any member.

(2) Personal service on any employee of suitable age and discretion at any place where the business of the limited liability company is regularly conducted.

Thus, LSA-C.C.P. art. 1266(A) sets forth the general rule that service of citation or other process on a limited liability company should be made by personal service on one of its agents for service of process, while LSA-C.C.P. art. 1266(B) authorizes service of citation or other process on a limited liability company by other methods under select circumstances. See State v. Kee Food, Inc., 2017-0127 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/21/17), 232 So.3d 29, 33-34, writ denied, 2017-1780 (La. 12/5/17), 231 So.3d 632. Specifically, LSA-C.C.P. art. 1266(B) provides that service of citation or other process may be made by other methods if the LLC failed to designate an agent for service of process; if there is no registered agent by reason of death, resignation, or removal; or if the person attempting to make service certifies that he is unable, after due diligence, to serve the designated agent. See Id.

In this matter, the record reflects that Trap's Construction designated Mr. Trepagnier as its sole agent for service of process in 2013. The record further reflects that TD Bank properly requested service of its garnishment petition on Trap's Construction through Mr. Trepagnier. Additionally, there is no evidence indicating that any of the conditions set forth in LSA-C.C.P. art. 1266(B) existed. Nevertheless, the service return documented domiciliary service of the “Citation to Garnishee” on Trap's Construction through Catherine Menard on January 20, 2023, at Trap's Construction's business address. Given the evidence in the record, we find that TD Bank failed to properly serve Trap's Construction as required by LSA-C.C.P. arts. 1266 and 2412.

A judgment rendered against a defendant who has not been served with process as required by law is an absolute nullity. See LSA-C.C.P. arts. 1201(A) and 2002(A)(2). Further, in the absence of evidence of proper citation and service of process informing the defendant of the claim against him, in strict compliance of the law, all subsequent proceedings are absolutely null. Brown v. Stratis Construction, LLC, 2021-0964 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/7/22), 341 So.3d 640, 646. As Trap's Construction was not served with the garnishment petition, interrogatories, and citation as required by law, the trial court's March 15, 2023 garnishment judgment was an absolute nullity. See LSA-C.C.P. arts. 2001 and 2002(A)(2); Richard v. Williams, 2023-0911 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/30/24), 390 So.3d 885, 889. Further, because the absence of evidence of proper citation and service of process renders all subsequent proceedings absolutely null, the May 24, 2024 judgment that is now before us on appeal is also absolutely null.² See Brown, 341 So.3d at 646. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying Trap's Construction's motion to reopen the garnishment proceedings and annul the garnishment judgment and in granting TD Bank's motion for garnishment accounting and rendering judgment in favor of TD Bank.

We find no merit in TD Bank's argument that Trap's Construction waived the objection of insufficiency of service of process because it provided TD Bank with answers to the garnishment interrogatories. It is well-settled that Trap's Construction's actual knowledge of the filing of TD Bank's garnishment petition did not obviate the need for service. See Naquin v. Titan Indemnity Co., 2000-1585 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So.2d 704, 710 (“it is well-accepted that even a defendant's actual knowledge of a legal action cannot supply the want of citation because proper citation is the foundation of all actions”); see also Igbinoghene v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 2011-0124 (La. 4/4/11), 58 So.3d 452, 453. Further, although Trap's Construction provided TD Bank with answers to the garnishment interrogatories, and TD Bank filed the answers into the record, TD Bank's filing did not waive Trap's Construction's objection of insufficiency of service of process. The objection of insufficiency of service of process is waived if it is not pled either prior to or contemporaneously with the filing of an answer or other pleadings seeking relief. Here, Trap's Construction's first filings into the record expressly raised the objection of insufficiency of service of process. See LSA-C.C.P. arts. 925 and 928(A); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. CBC Temporary Staffing Services, Inc., 2003-0480 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/3/04), 897 So.2d 652, 654.

Having found both the March 15, 2023 judgment and the May 24, 2024 judgment to be absolute nullities, we pretermit any discussion as to Trap's Construction's other assignments of error.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court's March 15, 2023 judgment and the trial court's May 24, 2024 judgment. All costs of this appeal are assessed to TD Bank, National Association.

MARCH 15, 2023 JUDGMENT VACATED; MAY 24, 2024 JUDGMENT VACATED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 922 recognizes only three exceptions: the declinatory exception, the dilatory exception, and the peremptory exception. Hereinafter, for brevity, we refer to these exceptions as the exception of no right of action, the exception of insufficiency of service of process, and the exception of nonconformity.

2.   This conclusion is consistent with our prior decision in Dads BR1, 352 So.3d 1012. In Dads BR1, the garnishee filed a “Motion to Reopen, Motion for New Trial and/or Petition to Annul Garnishment Judgment” on the basis that the garnishment judgment was absolutely null for lack of service. As in this matter, the judgment creditor in Dads BR1 properly requested service on the registered agent of the garnishee corporation, but the service returns indicated that “individuals other than [the garnishee's agent for service of process] were served[.]” Dads BR1, 352 So.3d at 1015. The trial court denied the garnishee's motion. On appeal, this court concluded:While service of process may be made on someone other than the agent for service of process in select circumstances, there was no evidence in the record prior to the rendition of the judgment pro confesso establishing that one of those circumstances applied. Accordingly, because service of process directed to a corporate defendant and made on one other than the person authorized to accept service is illegal and without effect, such service is tantamount to no service. A judgment rendered against a defendant who has not been served with process as required by law is an absolute nullity. Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in denying Harmony Center's petition to annul judgment.Dads BR1, 352 So.3d at 1016 (internal citations omitted).

McCLENDON, C.J.