All oral, written or unspoken contracts have certain elements considered valid. Ms. Nauman-Anderson and the Tribunal cite jesco Constr in their written submission. Corp. v. NationsBank Corp., 02-0057 (La.10/25/02), 830 So.2d 989, for the phrase that “[t]he Louisiana Credit Agreement excludes any action for damages under oral credit contracts, regardless of the theory of recovery law.” However, both Ms. Nauman-Anderson and the court misunderstood the Jesco case. A “creditor” is from La. R.S. 6:1121 is defined as “a financial institution or any other type of creditor that extends credits or extends financial housing under a credit contract with a debtor.” A “debtor,” on the other hand, is from La. R.S. 6:1121 defines as “a person or entity that receives credits or seeks a credit contract with a creditor or owes money to a creditor.” The same law defines the “credit agreement” as an “agreement to repay money or property or any other credit extension or other financial adjustment.” 5.
S.R. 6:1121. Given that Ms. Nauman-Anderson`s request to make summary judgments exclusively on two errors, first, that La. R.S. 6:1122, and second, that her alleged loan agreement with Mr. Palmisano required a signed debt, we find that she did not comply with the burden of proof to obtain a summary judgment under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art 966 .5. Therefore, oral loan contracts are clearly authorized by Louisiana law. In this case, Mr. Palmisano never claimed that his alleged loan agreement with Ms. Nauman-Anderson was originally entered into on the basis of a note of guilt.
According to both parties, Mr. Palmisano sent a debt to Ms. Nauman-Anderson to commemorate her loan agreement after the end of their romantic relationship. The alleged loan agreement between Mr. Palmisano and Ms.