107 So. 3d 7
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Alderdice sold the Property to Thelma Bickham under a credit sale; title was recorded and later transferred after expropriation to the Board.
- Bickham heirs took possession and assumed the note; they allegedly made no payments after late 2008, prompting suit on the note.
- The Board filed a Petition for Expropriation and Lis Pendens on August 13, 2010; Alderdice intervened in the expropriation case.
- The Board obtained a judgment on August 27, 2010, transferring title to the Board and depositing $6,655 as just compensation; the judgment listed the Bickham credit sale as a lien.
- Alderdice learned of the expropriation after demolition of the Property and filed this action February 26, 2011 seeking nullification of the judgment or damages for lack of notice and demolition.
- The trial court granted the Board’s exceptions of No Cause and No Right of Action, which the appellate court affirmed on de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alderdice has a nullity cause of action | Alderdice claims lack of notice and potential due process defects warrant annulment. | Board contends Alderdice has no cause of action because he is not the property owner and the expropriation statute is constitutional. | No cause of action exists; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Alderdice has a right of action for damages | Alleged failure to notify and demolish caused damages to Alderdice. | Only the property owner may seek compensation; Alderdice is not an owner. | No right of action; judgment affirmed. |
| Constitutionality of quick-taking expropriation statutes | Statutes are unconstitutional as applied to due process. | Statutes are constitutional post Olinkraft and Sabine River Authority decisions. | Not reached on merits; constitutionality not properly raised by petition; was not necessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Breeden v. Crumes, 2011-1098 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/4/12) (defines no-cause action and no-right-of-action standards)
- Wingfield v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 716 So.2d 164 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/29/98) (distinguishes no-cause vs no-right-of-action)
- Homot v. Cardenas, 968 So.2d 789 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/3/07) (de novo review standard for such exceptions)
- NOLA 180 v. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc., 94 So.3d 886 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/16/12) (applies de novo review; favors plaintiff under favorable resolution)
- Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm’n, 646 So.2d 885 (La. 1994) (expropriation rights and class of plaintiffs)