Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Authenticity of the borrower’s signature on a $60,000 loan was not proven false; the plaintiff’s expert was found unreliable while the defense expert deemed authorship inconclusive, so the burden of proof was not met.

• Despite a tutorship regime, the borrower retained capacity to manage personal assets; the loan was a personal one, not corporate, so no S.E.N.C. authorization was required.

• No misappropriation by the defendant was established; deposits aligned with business needs and the remaining funds were given to the borrower.

• Causation failed: the plaintiff’s loss flowed from the borrower’s estate bankruptcy and the plaintiff’s own omissions (no co-signer/caution; no proof of claim), not from any fault by the defendant.

• Abuse-of-procedure allegations by both sides were rejected; however, the plaintiff was cast in legal costs including the defense expert’s fees.

• Harassing conduct by the plaintiff (pursuit, threats, employer contact, repeated calls) constituted civil fault; the defendant obtained $7,520 in damages plus interest and an additional indemnity.

Facts
A private lender advanced three loans to a businessman who, at the relevant time, was under a tailored tutorship regime. The first ($50,000 at 18%, December 2018) was notarial and later repaid; the second ($20,000 at 60%, March 2019) was repaid by the defendant because she had co-signed; the third loan—the dispute’s focus—was $60,000 at 18% allegedly signed by the borrower in May 2019, with the defendant present only as a witness. Days later, the borrower died and his succession entered bankruptcy proceedings. The plaintiff did not file a proof of claim. The plaintiff later asserted the defendant forged the borrower’s signature and personally kept the funds, also trying to link the loan to the S.E.N.C. via a handwritten “renovation” note added unilaterally after the fact.

Procedural posture
The plaintiff sued the defendant and the S.E.N.C. for $84,999.99 (capital, contractual interest, and alleged extrajudicial fees tied to purported abuse), and sought to pin liability personally on the defendant. The defendant contested, denied wrongdoing, and counterclaimed for harassment-related damages, extrajudicial fees, and sanctions under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Key issues
Whether the signature on the $60,000 loan was forged by the defendant; whether the borrower, despite tutorship, had capacity to enter a personal loan; whether the defendant misappropriated funds; whether any alleged fault caused the plaintiff’s loss; whether either side’s conduct amounted to abusive procedure; and whether the defendant proved compensable harm from the plaintiff’s post-loan conduct.

Court’s analysis
Authenticity of the signature
The plaintiff’s expert (a graphologist who provided multiple versions/opinions) was found methodologically weak, internally inconsistent, and insufficiently reliable. The defense expert (an experienced forensic examiner) concluded authorship was non-conclusive; signatures showed natural variation and no persuasive indicia of simulation. Result: the plaintiff failed to prove forgery on a balance of probabilities.
Capacity and tutorship
The March 14, 2019 judgment modulating tutorship confirmed the borrower’s aptitude to manage his personal property and funds. Restrictions applied to acts involving the S.E.N.C., not to personal borrowing. The disputed loan was personal, and the post-hoc “renovation” note on the document had been unilaterally added by the plaintiff. Accordingly, no authorization of a council of tutorship or the court was required, and the S.E.N.C. was not implicated.
Appropriation and causation
Documentary evidence showed business-account deposits consistent with using the loan to shore up cash flow and that the balance was provided to the borrower; there was no proof the defendant pocketed the funds. Independently, causation failed: the loss flowed from the bankruptcy of the borrower’s estate and the plaintiff’s own choices—most notably not demanding a co-borrower/caution on the third loan (an “fatal error,” by his own admission) and not filing a bankruptcy proof of claim. Even had the contract been void, restitution would lie against the estate, not the defendant.
Abuse of procedure and sanctions
Although the plaintiff’s case failed, it was not abusive per se given the initial expert report he held and the colorable legal questions. Sanctions under Article 342 C.p.c. were denied; however, ordinary costs consequences applied, including the prevailing party’s expert fees.
Harassment and damages
The court credited evidence that the plaintiff harassed the defendant: visiting her new employer and disparaging her, tailing her by car (leading to a peace bond), parking to intimidate, repeated calls and home visits, and attempting criminal complaint recourse. These acts exceeded what is reasonable for a creditor and constituted civil fault, causing psychological stress and treatment expenses.

Holding and outcome
The main claim was dismissed in full against both the defendant and the S.E.N.C. The counterclaim succeeded in part: the defendant received $5,000 in moral damages plus $2,520 in psychologist fees (total $7,520), with legal interest and the additional indemnity from March 21, 2025.

Relief and costs
Abuse-of-procedure remedies sought by both sides were rejected. The plaintiff was condemned to pay the defendant’s costs, including the defense handwriting expert’s fees of $12,972.41.