86 So. 3d 125
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bandaries filed a petition in Natchitoches City Court seeking return of funds advanced to Cassidy for property maintenance.
- Cassidy answered with a lis pendens exception and sought sanctions, arguing the funds were at issue in CDC and 10th JDC suits.
- A hearing on November 10, 2010 sustained the lis pendens, dismissed the claims, and sanctioned Bandaries $2,500 plus costs.
- Cassidy also sought damages for a frivolous appeal in this court.
- The trial court’s reasons treated lis pendens under La. Code Civ. P. art. 531 and res judicata principles, citing related cases.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court, holding lis pendens proper, sanctions warranted, and awarding damages for a frivolous appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was lis pendens proper against Bandaries' suit? | Bandaries contends two suits are not the same transaction. | Cassidy argues the suits involve the same transaction/occurrence and parties in the same capacities. | Yes; dismissal proper under lis pendens. |
| Were sanctions against Bandaries appropriate? | Bandaries argues no improper purpose and no harassment. | Cassidy asserts improper purpose and harassment justifying sanctions. | Sanctions affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Were damages for frivolous appeal warranted against Bandaries? | Bandaries claims appeal was not frivolous. | Cassidy seeks damages for frivolous appeal. | Damages for frivolous appeal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bandaries v. Cassidy, 66 So.3d 564 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2011) (affirming lis pendens and related res judicata analysis in same transaction)
- Travcal Properties, LLC v. Logan, 49 So.3d 466 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (same transaction/occurrence requirement for lis pendens)
- Morris v. Haas, 659 So.2d 804 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1995) (identity of parties in the legal sense for lis pendens)
- United Gen. Title Ins. Co. v. Casey Title, Ltd, 800 So.2d 1061 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2001) (concept of privity/virtual representation in lis pendens)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 986 So.2d 797 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (frivolous appeal damages standard)