136 So. 3d 343
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Branch filed a petition for declaratory judgment, accounting, and specific performance on Feb 22, 2008, seeking enforcement of a 1990 contract and invalidation of a 2003 bond-for-deed contract.
- The 1990 contract was for a Kenner property at 823 31st Street, with title to transfer after $10,000 paid; payments totaled $11,000 by 1998.
- The 2003 bond-for-deed contract covered the same property at $66,000, with Branches paying $9,555 from Aug 2003 to Mar 2005.
- Defendant issued a December 2007 notice of default and allegedly canceled the 1990 contract after Branch demanded title transfer.
- In Sept 2010 the trial court sustained a peremptory exception to join Mr. Branch’s succession and ordered amendment within 30 days or dismissal with prejudice.
- On Nov 3, 2010 the case was dismissed with prejudice for failure to amend, with no notice having been issued for that judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the September 2010 joinder order was proper. | Branch argues the succession was non-existent and the order to amend was improper. | Young contends the September 2010 judgment was proper as a preliminary matter to be reviewed only if final. | Yes; the order to join the succession was proper as a needed party. |
| Whether the intervention was timely or properly served. | Branch asserts the intervention was proper and necessary to represent the estate. | Young contends the intervention was untimely and not properly served since the principal action had been dismissed. | Yes; the petition of intervention was properly dismissed. |
| Whether the eviction ruling was proper. | Branch contends eviction was improper under bond-for-deed and not supported by evidence. | Young argues eviction is proper to regain possession after default. | No; eviction was improperly granted due to lack of evidentiary support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Updegraff v. Parish of St. Bernard, 433 So.2d 863 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1983) (interlocutory judgments can be reviewed by supervisory writs or after final judgment)
- In re Succession of Spitzfaden, 113 So.3d 1103 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2013) (interlocutory review after final judgment; joinder considerations)
- Ancona v. Lathan, 506 So.2d 222 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1987) (notice timing and appeal rights in final judgments)