Louisiana Senate Bill SB437

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/20/10
• Engrossed: 4/26/10
• Refer: 4/27/10
• Report Pass: 5/4/10
• Enrolled: 6/21/10
• Chaptered: 6/29/10
• Passed: 6/29/10

Caption

Authorizes recovery of attorneys fees and costs under certain circumstances concerning non-residential contracts. (8/15/10)

Impact

The bill's impact centers on the legal implications for parties engaging in non-residential contracts. By potentially increasing the liabilities associated with fraudulent claims, it aims to deter parties from making bad faith allegations. If a court finds that a fraud allegation was meant maliciously, the party making the allegation could incur additional costs. Conversely, if fraud is proven, the perpetrator becomes liable for fees. This adjustment may influence how fraud claims are handled within the construction and real estate sectors, as parties weigh the financial consequences of their claims.

Summary

Senate Bill 437 aims to amend Louisiana law regarding the recovery of attorney fees and court costs in litigation involving non-residential contracts. Specifically, the bill stipulates that when allegations of fraud are made in such cases, these issues must be resolved in a separate trial before addressing any other matters. This is intended to clarify the legal process surrounding fraud allegations and promote more efficient handling of disputes related to non-residential contracts.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 437 appears to be cautiously supportive among legal professionals who see the bill as a means to streamline the litigation process and reduce frivolous claims. However, there are concerns regarding the potential chilling effect on legitimate fraud claims, as parties may fear increased costs if they opt to pursue allegations that are later dismissed. Overall, the bill reflects a balancing act between protecting parties from vexatious litigation while ensuring that true fraudulent actions can still be pursued effectively.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the adequacy of protections for legitimate fraud claims versus the need to prevent abuses of the legal system through false allegations. Critics may argue that the bill places a disproportionate burden on claimants who suspect fraud, deterring them from seeking justice out of fear of incurring substantial costs. This highlights an ongoing debate about the proper balance between incentivizing honest business practices and safeguarding legal avenues for victims of fraud.