CAPITAL ONE SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO DISCOVER BANK v. RAYMOND DANZY (2026)

Defendant-Appellant, Raymond A. Danzy, appeals the default judgment rendered against him for $12,749.33, with interest plus costs in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee, Capital One, N.A. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Capital One filed suit on June 30, 2025, against Danzy for sums due on an open account relating to his Discover credit card.¹ It attached to the suit a Discover credit card statement addressed to Danzy evidencing a balance of $12,749.33. On August 25, 2025, Capital One filed a certificate of attorney regarding notice, service, military service, and the nature of the account; a La.Code Civ.P. art. 1702 certificate noting that no notice of intent to pursue a final judgment was required; the affidavit of Andrew Moore, a litigation support coordinator for Capital One, who attested to the correctness of the last periodic statement sent to Danzy; and, an updated Discover card statement evidencing a balance of $13,056.75. The trial court rendered a default judgment in favor of Capital One on August 25, 2025, in the amount of $12,749.33, with interest at the statutory rate from the date of judgment, together with costs of $450.00 incurred to date. Danzy timely appealed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Appellant's sole assignment of error is that “[t]he district court erred in issuing a default judgment because Appellee failed to establish a prima facie case by competent evidence.”

DISCUSSION

“In reviewing default judgments, appellate courts are restricted to determining the sufficiency of the evidence offered in support of judgment.” Bordelon v. Sayer, 01-717, p.3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/13/02), 811 So.2d 1232, 1235, writ denied, 02-1009 (La. 6/21/02), 819 So.2d 340. We review a trial court's determination regarding sufficiency of the evidence under the manifest error standard of review. Id. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1702 sets forth the procedure for obtaining a default judgment against a party and states in part (emphasis added):

A. (1) If a defendant in the principal or incidental demand fails to answer or file other pleadings within the time prescribed by law or by the court, and the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by competent and admissible evidence that is admitted on the record, a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff may be rendered, provided that notice that the plaintiff intends to obtain a default judgment is sent if required by this Paragraph, unless such notice is waived. The court may permit documentary evidence to be filed in the record in any electronically stored format authorized by the local rules of the district court or approved by the clerk of the district court for receipt of evidence.

․

B.

․

(3) When the sum due is on an open account or a promissory note or other negotiable instrument, an affidavit of the correctness thereof shall be prima facie proof. When the demand is based upon a promissory note or other negotiable instrument, no proof of any signature thereon shall be required.

C. In those proceedings in which the sum due is on an open account ․ a hearing in open court shall not be required unless the judge, in his discretion, directs that such a hearing be held. The plaintiff shall submit to the court the proof required by law and the original and not less than one copy of the proposed default judgment. The judge shall, within seventy-two hours of receipt of such submission from the clerk of court, sign the proposed default judgment or direct that a hearing be held. The clerk of court shall certify that no answer or other pleading has been filed by the defendant. The minute clerk shall make an entry showing the dates of receipt of proof, review of the record, and rendition of the default judgment. A certified copy of the signed default judgment shall be sent to the plaintiff by the clerk of court, and notice of the signing of the default judgment shall be given as provided in Article 1913.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1702.1 states:

A. When the plaintiff seeks a default judgment without appearing for a hearing in open court as provided in Article 1702(B)(1) and (C), the plaintiff shall file a written request for default judgment containing a certification that the suit is on an open account, promissory note, or other negotiable instrument, on a conventional obligation, or on a check dishonored for nonsufficient funds, and that the necessary invoices and affidavit, note and affidavit, or check or certified reproduction thereof are attached, along with any proof required by law and a proposed default judgment. If attorney fees are sought under R.S. 9:2781 or 2782, the attorney shall certify that fact and the fact that the number of days required by R.S. 9:2781(A) or 2782(A), respectively, have elapsed since demand was made upon the defendant.

B. The certification shall indicate the type of service made on the defendant and the date of service and shall also include a certification by the clerk that the record was examined by the clerk, including therein the date of the examination and a statement that no answer or other pleading has been filed within the time prescribed by law or by the court.

In Sessions & Fishman v. Liquid Air Corp., 616 So.2d 1254, 1258 (La.1993) (emphasis added), the supreme court resolved any doubt as to the proof required on an open account:

In order for a plaintiff to obtain a default judgment, “he must establish the elements of a prima facie case with competent evidence, as fully as though each of the allegations in the petition were denied by the defendant.” Thibodeaux v. Burton, 538 So.2d 1001, 1004 (La.1989); Blue Bonnet Creamery, Inc. v. Simon, 243 La. 683, 146 So.2d 162, 166 (1962). “In other words, the plaintiff must present competent evidence that convinces the court that it is probable that he would prevail on a trial on the merits.” Thibodeaux, 538 So.2d at 1004. A plaintiff seeking to confirm a default must prove both the existence and the validity of his claim. There is a presumption that a default judgment is supported by sufficient evidence, but this presumption does not attach when the record upon which the judgment is rendered indicates otherwise. Ascension Builders, Inc. v. Jumonville, 262 La. 519, 263 So.2d 875, 878 (1972); see also Massey v. Consumer's Ice Co. of Shreveport, 223 La. 731, 66 So.2d 789, 790 (1953).

In setting forth the proof required to confirm a default when the demand is for a sum due on an open account, the legislature provided that prima facie proof is shown by an affidavit of the correctness thereof. LSA–C.C.P. art. 1702(B)(3). “Thereof” simply means “of it.” In this context, the affidavit of correctness refers to the validity of the account, i.e. the “correctness” of the sum due. This provision does away with the necessity of taking testimony in order to establish the validity of the account. The existence of the claim, however, is supported by a statement of the account or invoices. Thus, in order to establish both the existence and the validity of a demand for a sum due on an open account, it is necessary for a plaintiff to present evidence of the account itself and an affidavit, or testimony, attesting to its correctness.

Capital One provided the necessary prima facie proof of a statement and an affidavit verifying its correctness. Capital One did not need to submit invoices, itemizations of charges, or the credit agreement, as Danzy argues. Moore's affidavit, which references Danzy's account number and the balance owed, further states in part:

This affidavit is made on the basis of my personal knowledge, as well as my review of documents held both by CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and DISCOVER PRODUCTS, INC., and is submitted in support of the Plaintiff's suit on account against the Cardmember(s).

In my capacity as Litigation Support Coordinator, I have knowledge regarding, and access to, records regarding the Discover Card account of the above referenced Cardmember(s). These records are maintained in the ordinary course of business, and the records are updated with information on events (such as charges and payments on the account) by individuals with personal knowledge of those events or by automated processes that track such events at or near the time that the vents occur. The same systems that record this information also generate periodic statements that are sent to Discover cardmember(s), and store copies of these periodic statements. In addition, these same record-keeping systems contain information about which version of CAPITAL ONE, N.A.’s terms and conditions has been communicated to an account holder and accepted by an account holder. I have personally inspected the records pertaining to the account of the Cardmember(s), including the last periodic statement sent to the Cardmember(s), to ascertain the applicable terms and conditions, the balance due on said account and whether the Cardmember(s) have made payments on that balance.

․

The account is in default because the Cardmember(s) have not paid the amounts due and owing to CAPITAL ONE, N.A. on the account.

The business records maintained by CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and DISCOVER PRODUCTS, INC., and described above, show that the Cardmember(s)’ account with CAPITAL ONE, N.A. is governed by terms and conditions referred to as “terms level 29K.” A true and correct copy of these terms and conditions have been provided to CAPITAL ONE, N.A.’s counsel in this case.

Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the last periodic statement sent by DISCOVER PRODUCTS INC. to the Cardmember(s), retrieved from the record-keeping system described above.

Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of information retrieved from DISCOVER PRODUCTS INC.,’s record-keeping system that shows the current balance due and owing on the Cardmember(s)’ account. Exhibit B reflects the balance that includes any activity occurring on the account after the last statement (Exhibit A).

․

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

The affidavit verifying the statements and existence of the balance on the account eliminates the need to provide anything more. Danzy does not dispute the existence of the agreement but instead argues that “the failure to attach the supporting written agreement should have been fatal to the motion for default judgment.” He then cites a number of cases that do not apply in the credit card default judgment landscape where there is no dispute as to the basis of the agreement itself. (Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 08-1111 (La. 5/5/09), 9 So.3d 815, where plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1702 relating to an insurance company's liability when the policy was not submitted into evidence at the default judgment hearing; Ascension Builders, Inc. v. Jumonville, 262 La. 519, 263 So.2d 875 (1972), default judgment not valid relating to the failure to attach the building contract when the statement attached to the default petition referred to the balance due on the original contract; and Sarasota, CCM, Inc., v. Supreme Quality Transp., LLC, 23-658 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/6/24), 385 So.3d 307, where a failure to attach a personal guarantee precluded a default judgment against a personal guarantor of an LLC's debts.) Moreover, a perfected credit card agreement need not be proven with an original signed document; it is perfected based upon use of the card to make purchases. See Bank of Louisiana v. Berry, 94-576 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94), 648 So.2d 991; Midland Funding, LLC, v. DelCorral, 12-1492 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/2/13), 126 So.3d 634. A similar argument was recently made in Discover Bank v. Hennigan, 24-202, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/20/24), 402 So.3d 89, 92-93, where a panel of this court found:

After reviewing the record, particularly the submitted account statement and affidavit of correctness, we find that the trial court did not err in finding that Discover submitted sufficient evidence to establish the elements of a prima facie case. Discover submitted an account statement clearly showing the existence of the debt in the amount of $18,884.14. The submitted affidavit of correctness verified that the affiant had personal knowledge that the statement was a record maintained in the ordinary course of business and was true and accurate. If Ms. Hennigan wished to dispute any portion of the debt, she could have done so in her answer which she failed to file. Accordingly, Discover was entitled to a default judgment in the amount requested.

Likewise, the trial court did not err in granting a default judgment in favor of Capital One who submitted the prima facie proof required by law.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Defendant-Appellant, Raymond A. Danzy.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Capital One, N.A. is the successor by merger to Discover Bank.

SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE