Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case stemmed from the tax sale of residential property located at 7047 Lake Willow Drive in New Orleans. In 1997, Charles and Connie Brown purchased this property pursuant to a “Cash Sale of Property.” The sale was recorded in the Orleans Parish Conveyance Records. After the Browns became delinquent on their property taxes, the property was sold at a tax sale in 2004, to Mooring Tax Asset Group. The tax collector executed a tax deed that purportedly conveyed the property to Mooring. This deed was recorded in the Orleans Parish conveyance records a year later. Presumably unaware of the tax sale, the Browns sold the property to NARA, L.L.C. pursuant to a “Cash Sale” in 2007. The sale was recorded in the Orleans Parish Conveyance Records shortly thereafter. NARA subsequently sold the property to defendant Roderick James in 2008. This sale was recorded in the Orleans Parish Conveyance Records shortly thereafter. In 2010, Mooring filed a “Petition to Quiet Title,” seeking to terminate James’ interest in the property for failure to redeem the property from the 2004 tax deed recorded in April of 2005. In June 2010, James filed exceptions and an answer to the petition, as well as a reconventional demand against the City of New Orleans, asserting that the tax sale should be nullified on several bases, including insufficient pre-sale notice and advertisement. James then filed a motion for summary judgment asserting these two bases for nullity. The trial court granted James’ motion, finding the 2004 tax sale and the 2004 tax deed were absolute nullities due to lack of sufficient pre-sale notice and for lack of sufficient pre-sale advertisement. Following the ruling, Mooring contended the declaration of nullity should be preliminary, rather than a final judgment, until it was paid costs allowed pursuant to La. R.S. 47:2291. James argued this statute could not be applied retroactively to this case, and was only applicable to tax sales that occurred after January 1, 2009. However, because Louisiana Constitution article VII, section 25(C) allowed for the delay of the effects of a tax sale nullification until certain costs are paid to the tax sale purchaser, the trial court issued a judgment allowing Mooring to submit proof of costs and James to contest costs. Mooring filed an “Affidavit of Proof of Costs Pursuant to La. R.S. 47:2221(B)(3).” James then submitted a “Motion to Contest Costs,” contending Mooring had not made a true claim for costs, and even if it had, taxes, interest, costs and penalties are not recoverable by a tax sale purchaser when the tax sale is an absolute nullity. Alternatively, James argued that if these taxes, costs and penalties are recoverable, they are not recoverable from a third-party purchaser who had no interest in the property at the time of the tax sale. After its review of the parties' arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the tax sale purchaser was entitled to reimbursement of its costs prior to cancellation of the tax sale deed. Furthermore, the Court held that it was the current owner of the property who was responsible for payment of these costs. The Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Mooring Tax Asset Group v. James" on Justia Law

A property owner/lessor filed suit against the City of Marksville seeking to recover damages for the City's denial of a retail alcoholic beverage permit to the lessee of its property. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the trial court erred in finding liability on the part of the City and awarding damages. In particular, the Court considered the City's contention that an error occurred in denying its peremptory exception of no cause of action. Finding merit in the City's claim that the property owner failed to state a cause of action for interference with a contractual relation caused by the denial of a liquor permit to its lessee, the Court reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the City. View "MAW Enterprises, LLC v. City of Marksville" on Justia Law

The City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge sought injunctive relief against defendant Stephen Myers to compel him to cease his alleged violation of the City-Parish’s Unified Development Code (the “UDC”), Title 7, Chapter 8, Section 8.201, Appendix H, entitled “Permissible Uses.” The City-Parish alleged that more than two unrelated persons were residing in a home owned by the defendant in an area zoned “A1” and restricted to “single-family dwellings.” The defendant answered the petition, admitting that he was the owner, but denying that he occupied the premises, as he had leased the property to other occupants. The defendant sought dismissal of the action for injunctive relief and asserted, both as an affirmative defense and as the basis for his reconventional demand for declaratory judgment: that the UDC zoning law’s restrictive definition of “family” was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, violating his state and federal constitutional rights of freedom of association; deprived him of his property without due process of law; denied him an economically viable use of his property; and violated his equal protection rights, contending the ordinance “impose[d] greater limitations on owners who choose to rent their homes . . . than it does on owners who choose not to rent their homes” and also by prohibiting “foster children and non-adopted stepchildren without a living biological parent from being able [to] reside with their respective foster parents and stepparents . . . while allowing an unlimited number of very distant relatives via blood, marriage or adoption to reside together.” The defendant also urged, along with defenses and/or matters not relevant hereto, that the zoning law’s definition of “family” should be declared void for vagueness because its prohibitions were not clearly defined and it does not contain an unequivocal statement of law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in its rulings; therefore, the Court reversed the declaration of unconstitutionality and the denial of a suspensive appeal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Baton Rouge v. Myers" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court involved mineral rights and royalties associated with a production well located on a certain tract of land owned by the plaintiffs in Terrebonne Parish. Two conveyances were at issue: a 1966 mineral deed and a 1992 cash sale. The plaintiffs asserted the 1966 mineral deed did not create a valid mineral servitude and, consequently, sought to be declared as owning 100% of the mineral rights since their purchase of the subject property by act of cash sale in 1992, and demanded to be awarded the royalties due from June 29, 1997, until the well stopped producing sometime in 2001 or 2002. Plaintiffs further asserted a violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act based on the allegation that various acts of the defendants amounted to a tortious conspiracy to deprive the plaintiffs of the royalties due them. The trial court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, finding the 1966 deed did not create a valid servitude over the subject property, plaintiffs were the owners of the mineral rights as of the 1992 purchase, and the defendants’ conduct amounted to unfair trade practices. The appellate court reversed and vacated the judgment, finding that the 1966 mineral deed had created a valid mineral servitude and that the 1992 act of cash sale had placed the plaintiffs on notice that the mineral rights to the property had been previously conveyed. The appellate court then remanded the case for consideration of the remaining issues associated with any rights the plaintiffs may have acquired from settlements with predecessor mineral interest owners in 2001 and 2005. After its review of the case, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal: the 1966 mineral deed was sufficiently specific to identify the property to be conveyed and, thus, to create a valid mineral servitude and to place third parties on notice of the existence of that servitude. Plaintiffs did not acquire the mineral rights to the subject property via the 1992 warranty deed. Furthermore, the actions of the defendants did not rise to the level of an unfair trade practice within the meaning of the act. View "Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. St. Martin" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case, Jimmie Jackson, E. Simms Hardin, and KSD Properties, LLC, untimely paid ad valorem taxes to the City of New Orleans on their respective properties, and were assessed penalties, fees, and interest thereon for various tax years between 2003 and 2009. Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the City, seeking a declaration that Ordinance Number 22207, and the collection of any penalties, fees, and interest collected thereunder, violated the statutes and constitution of Louisiana, and that the application of Ordinance Number 22207 to this case violated U.S. Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. The district court issued rulings on the City's exceptions and on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, which: granted the City's exception of no cause of action as to Jackson and Hardin, dismissing these plaintiffs (for failing to comply with the city ordinance requiring payment under protest); denied the City's objections of no cause of action and prescription as to plaintiff KSD; and granted KSD's motion for summary judgment (upon a finding of unconstitutionality as to Ordinance Number 22207). Both plaintiffs and the City filed motions for new trial. The City's motion was granted in part, to dismiss KSD's claims as to its 2008 tax penalty and fees for failure to state a cause of action and to amend the judgment accordingly (for KSD's failure to timely assert a protest as to the penalty and fees assessed for that year's delinquent tax payment); the motions for new trial were denied in all other respects. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the City argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment by declaring Ordinance Number 22207 unconstitutional. After review of the district court record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the limitation of liability afforded to a member of a limited liability company (LLC). In 2007, Mary Ogea signed a contract entitled "Custom Home Building Agreement" for Merritt Construction, LLC, to build a home on an undeveloped parcel of land she owned. On behalf of the LLC, its sole member, Travis Merritt, signed the contract. The contract did not specifically describe the type of foundation to be provided for the home. After the construction work had advanced well past the point of building the foundation and framing the home, Ogea hired another concrete contractor to pour a driveway and patio. This concrete contractor informed Ogea that he believed there were problems with the concrete work for the home's foundation. Ogea then hired a licensed engineer, Charles Norman, to inspect the structure. Norman conducted several inspections and concluded there were indeed significant problems with the slab foundation. Ogea notified the LLC of the problems with the foundation. Based on her consultations with Norman, Ogea requested a refund of all monies she paid to the LLC (approximately $94,000) and sought demolition of the unfinished home. The LLC did not reply to the refund request. Ogea did not make the final installment payment called for in the contract, and the LLC ceased all work on the home. Ogea then sued the LLC and Merritt individually. Ogea sought to recover the money she had expended for the home, plus other damages under the New Home Warranty Act. The district court rendered judgment against both Merritt and the LLC "in solido" for various items of damages. Both Merritt and the LLC appealed. The court of appeal reduced the amount of the general damage award, but affirmed the imposition of personal liability on Merritt. After reviewing the record and the controlling legal principles, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' judgment of personal liability against Merritt and dismissed the claims against him. View "Ogea v. Merritt" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter centered on whether defects in load-bearing walls were a result of "any defect" due to noncompliance with the buildings standards subject to a one year peremptive period, or whether they constituted a "major structural defect" subject to a peremptive period of five years. This case stemmed from damages caused by a home flooding. The District Court found the defects in the four exterior load-bearing walls constituted a major structural defect under the Act to which the five-year warranty period applied and awarded plaintiff Barbara Shaw damages. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the plaintiff's claim was for a defect in workmanship subject to a one year peremptive period. After review, the Supreme Court reversed, finding the record supported the failure of the load-bearing walls affected the "load-bearing functions to the extent the home becomes unsafe, unsanitary, or is otherwise unlivable," as provided by La. Rev. Stat. 9:3143. Thus, it constituted a major structural defect and the five-year warranty applied. View "Shaw v. Acadian Builders & Contractors, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the New Home Warranty Act ("NHWA") provided the exclusive remedy between a home builder and a purchaser of residential property, where the builder failed to disclose known defects in the home in a Residential Property Disclosure Statement. The NHWA provides the "exclusive remedies, warranties, and preemptive periods as between builder and owner relative to home construction," but, when the new home is occupied by the builder for some time period before being sold, the builder/seller must also comply with the provisions of the RPDA. As the RPDA does not "limit or modify any obligation between buyers and sellers created by any other statute or that may exist in law," a seller can be liable for fraud for violating the RPDA. In this case, the trial court found the Meltons committed fraud by making a willful misrepresentation of a known defect and this was not manifest error. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and held that the purchasers were not limited to the provisions of the NHWA under the facts of this case. View "Stutts v. Melton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs the State and the Vermilion Parish School Board filed a "Petition for Damages to School Lands" in 2004 seeking damages and remediation of a sixteenth section of property in Vermilion Parish owned by the State and managed by the School Board. The property was allegedly polluted by oil and gas exploration and production performed pursuant to an oil, gas and mineral lease originally granted on the property in 1935 and a surface lease entered into in 1994. The plaintiffs claimed damage to the land’s soil, surface waters and ground waters. Plaintiffs raised various causes of action including negligence, strict liability, unjust enrichment, trespass, breach of contract and violations of both the Mineral Code and the Civil Code. Several defendants were named in the original petition and in supplemental and amending petitions as companies which conducted, directed, controlled or participated in various oil and gas exploration and production activities as operators and/or working interest owners, and/or joint venturers in the mineral interest. At the time of this appeal, the remaining defendants were Union Oil Company of California; Union Exploration Partners; Carrollton Resources, L.L.C.; Chevron USA Inc.; and Chevron Midcontinent, L.P. In a motion for summary judgment, Chevron USA Inc. sought dismissal from suit, which was denied. Upon review of Chevron's argument that it should have been dismissed from the suit, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal’s conclusion that there seemed to be a genuine issue of material fact as to Chevron USA Inc.’s successor status to Union Oil Company of California, and as such, should not have been dismissed from the case. Consequently, the Court affirmed the court of appeal’s opinion in this regard. View "Louisiana v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Company" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs owned an undivided five-sixths interest of land on which they executed an oil and gas lease to Prestige Exploration, Inc. Plaintiffs ownership interests were managed by Regions Bank who helped negotiate the terms of the lease. Prestige acquired the lease on behalf of Defendant Matador Resources Company. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on the extension of that lease. Plaintiffs sought to rescind or reform the extension agreement to make it applicable only to a portion of their property. After several preliminary partial summary judgment rulings, a jury found in favor of Defendant for the extension to cover the entirety of Plaintiffs' land interest. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and reformed the lease to extend only to the portion of land for which Plaintiffs asked. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs were precluded from rescinding the agreement on "excusable error." Further, the Court found no manifest error in the district court proceedings. The Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment in its entirety. View "Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co." on Justia Law