262 So. 3d 909
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- LSU and the VA expropriated multiple New Orleans properties after Hurricane Katrina; condemnation funds were deposited into the court registry.
- Defendants withdrew most deposited funds but left an amount earmarked for alleged City property taxes in the registry pending resolution.
- Parties executed a confidential global Settlement resolving "all claims that have been or could have been raised" in the consolidated Actions.
- Section 4.2 of the Settlement expressly permitted Defendants to "withdraw any remaining funds in the court's registry for the Actions to the extent permitted by law," and the City agreed not to object to the withdrawal.
- The City opposed releasing the tax‑earmarked funds, arguing the Settlement did not waive its right to collect property taxes; defendants moved to enforce the Settlement and withdraw the funds.
- The trial court granted the motion; the City appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Settlement unambiguous and that defendants were entitled to the registry funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Settlement reserved the City’s right to collect alleged property taxes from funds remaining in the court registry | City: the phrase “to the extent permitted by law” preserves its tax claim and prior consent judgments reserved tax funds | Defendants: Settlement resolved all claims "that have been or could have been raised" and expressly authorized withdrawal of remaining registry funds; no reservation of tax claims appears | The Settlement is unambiguous and encompasses all claims; defendants entitled to withdraw the remaining registry funds; City’s reservation argument fails |
| Whether the trial court erred in interpreting and enforcing the Settlement | City: trial court misread the Settlement and should have enforced an implied tax reservation | Defendants: trial court correctly enforced the plain terms of the written Settlement | Appellate court applies contract interpretation rules and finds no manifest error; trial court’s enforcement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for manifest error review of factual findings)
- Borchardt v. Carline, 617 So.2d 970 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1993) (compromise agreements favored; definition of compromise)
- French Quarter Realty v. Gambel, 921 So.2d 1025 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (rules and principles for contract interpretation)
- Feingerts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 117 So.3d 1294 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (compromise interpretation reviewed under manifest error/clearly wrong standard)
- Hancock Bank of Louisiana v. Holmes, 40 So.3d 1131 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (cited for standard on compromise agreement review)
- Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 630 So.2d 741 (La. 1994) (applicability of contract/compromise interpretation principles)