A Louisiana court recently ruled on a case involving First Tower Loan, LLC, and Victoria Wright, affecting how default judgments are handled in consumer loan cases. The court's decision amended previous judgments against Wright, correcting the amounts owed and the interest rates applied to her loan.

This case, First Tower Loan, LLC, D/B/A Tower Loan of Winnfield v. Victoria Wright, A/K/A Victoria Daniela Wright, A/K/A Victoria D. Wright, was filed under docket number 57,126-CA. The Louisiana Court of Appeal issued its ruling on September 30, 2026, and the decision is significant for both consumers and lenders in the state.

Background

The parties in this case are First Tower Loan, a consumer finance company, and Victoria Wright, who took out a loan from the company. Tower Loan provides personal, installment-based credit to consumers with limited credit history and lower credit scores. Due to the higher risk of default, Tower Loan charges higher interest rates than traditional banks.

Wright took out a loan of $2,233.82 on July 6, 2023, with an annual percentage rate (APR) of 37.26%. This loan required her to make 26 payments of $127 each, totaling $3,302. However, Wright made her last payment just four months after receiving the loan, leaving a balance of $2,350.90. Tower Loan filed a suit to collect this unpaid balance, along with contractual interest and other fees.

After Wright failed to respond to the lawsuit, Tower Loan sought a default judgment. However, the district court altered the proposed judgment by changing the interest rates and principal amounts without holding a required hearing, leading to Tower Loan's appeal.

The Ruling

The Louisiana Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Tower Loan, stating that the district court had erred in its handling of the case. The court emphasized that the trial court lacked the authority to modify the proposed default judgment without a hearing, as mandated by Louisiana law.

The court ruled, "The district court lacked authority to deviate from the procedures set forth in La. C. C. P. art. 1702 for altering the amount prayed for without a hearing."

Judge Thompson, along with Judges Cox and Stephens, presided over the case. The court amended the judgments to reflect the correct amounts owed and the proper interest rates, stating that the trial court had committed a substantial error by not annulling the judgments after becoming aware of the previous ruling in a related case.

Impact

This ruling is important for both consumers and lenders in Louisiana. It clarifies the procedures that must be followed when a default judgment is sought in consumer loan cases. The court's decision reinforces the need for transparency and adherence to legal standards in the judicial process, particularly in cases involving financial transactions.

The ruling may also set a precedent for future cases involving consumer loans, ensuring that lenders cannot unilaterally change the terms of a loan agreement without proper legal proceedings. This could protect consumers from potentially unfair practices in the lending industry.

What's Next

The decision can potentially be appealed, but it is unclear if Tower Loan plans to pursue further legal action. There may also be related cases pending, as the court's ruling could impact similar situations involving default judgments in consumer loans.