Kueber v. Martin©www.mlmlegal.com
Welcome to the MLMLegal.com Legal Cases Project. Here you will find hundreds of legal cases in the fields of MLM, Direct Selling, Network Marketing, Multilevel Marketing and Party Plan. The cases span federal and state courts as well as administrative cases from the FTC, FDA, IRS, SEC, worker’s compensation, unemployment compensation, etc.The intent of the MLMLegal.com Cases Project is strictly educational, and, to provide insight into the legal issues and cases for an industry that spans the globe in upwards of 150 countries with sales volume exceeding $100 billion and distributor involvement in the tens of millions. MLMLegal.Com does not promote or endorse any company. MLMLegal.Com offers no value judgments, either pro or con, regarding the companies profiled in legal cases.
Jeffrey A. Babener, principal attorney in the Portland, Oregon, law firm Babener & Associates, and editor of www.mlmlegal.com, represents many of the leading direct selling companies in the United States and abroad.
www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com
Kueber v. Martin
Case: Kueber v. Martin (1991)
Subject Category: Pyramid
Agency Involved: Private Civil Suit
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Synopsis: The Louisiana Supreme Court was asked if a bank could be held liable for negligence in connection with an illegal pyramid scheme operated by one of its depositors.
Legal Issue: Can a bank be held liable for negligence in connection with an illegal pyramid scheme operated by one of its depositors?
Court Ruling: The Louisiana Supreme Court held that a bank could be held liable for negligence based on the actions of one of its depositors. The Court overturned the Court of Appeals because, based on the facts of the complaint, a bank officer and the bank encouraged investment in the scheme with knowledge of its character. Alleging these facts adequately stated a cause of action for negligence, and the case was remanded for trial on the negligence claim.
Practical Importance to Business of MLM/Direct Sales/Direct Selling/Network Marketing/Party Plan/Multilevel Marketing: As long as a financial institution provides regular financial services for its MLM clients and does not participate in it with knowledge of any illicit character, the financial institution should not be held liable for the customers’ violations of the law.
Kueber v. Martin , 578 So.2d 113 (1991) : The Louisiana Supreme Court held that a bank could be held liable for negligence based on the actions of one of its depositors. The Court overturned the Court of Appeals because, based on the facts of the complaint, a bank officer and the bank encouraged investment in the scheme with knowledge of its character. Alleging these facts adequately stated a cause of action for negligence, and the case was remanded for trial on the negligence claim.
www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com
578 So.2d 113
David W. KUEBLER and Professional Planners, Inc.
v.
Lynn Paul MARTIN, Individually and d/b/a L.P.M. Enterprises, Inc., et al.
No. 91-C-0600.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
April 11, 1991.
*114 PER CURIAM.
Granted in part; denied in part.
In this action plaintiffs, David W. Keubler and Professional Planners, Inc., allege that they were victims of a criminal "ponzi" and "check kiting" scheme perpetrated by Lynn Paul Martin. Metairie Bank and Trust Company (hereinafter "Metairie Bank") was named as one of the defendants in the suit. The trial court granted Metairie Bank's peremptory exception of no cause of action. The court of appeal affirmed. 576 So.2d 75. We reverse the portion of the court of appeal judgment that affirmed the trial court's granting of Metairie Bank's exception of no cause of action.
[1][2][3] Pleadings must be construed reasonably so as to afford litigants their day in court, to arrive at the truth, and to do substantial justice. La.C.C.P. art. 865. Teachers' Retirement System v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, 456 So.2d 594 (La.1984); Haskins v. Clary, 346 So.2d 193 (La.1977); Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975). When it can reasonably do so, the court should maintain a petition against a peremptory exception so as to afford the litigant an opportunity to present his evidence. Teachers' Retirement System v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, supra; Henson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 711 (La.1978). The purpose of an exception of no cause of action is to determine the sufficiency in law of the petition and is triable on the face of the papers; for the purpose of determining the issues raised by this exception, the well pleaded facts in the petition and any annexed documents must be accepted as true. Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984); Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La.1984); Eschete v. City of New Orleans, 258 La. 133, 245 So.2d 383 (1971).
[4] In the present action, plaintiffs allege that Alan Sheppard was an officer of Metairie Bank; the details of Martin's scheme were disclosed to Metairie Bank through Sheppard; based on these representations, and without exercising due diligence, Metairie Bank encouraged plaintiffs to invest in Martin's scheme; and Metairie Bank granted loans to plaintiffs for the purpose of investing in Martin's scheme. In asserting these allegations, plaintiffs have stated a cause of action against Metairie Bank.
*115 For the reasons assigned, the portion of the judgment of the court of appeals that maintained Metairie Bank and Trust Company's exception of no cause of action is reversed, the exception of no cause of action is overruled insofar as it affects Metairie Bank, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; otherwise, the writ is denied.