299 So.3d 728
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Property: 4609-11 Freret St., New Orleans; Renee deVille purchased a 1% tax-sale certificate in 2009 and recorded it in 2010.
- DeVille obtained a writ of possession in 2011 and the sheriff delivered possession; she performed renovations, recorded multiple liens, applied for permits, and obtained a certificate of occupancy (but did not meet the 270-day requirement in La. R.S. 9:5633(A)(12)).
- In 2018, successors-in-interest (through Successions proceedings) sold the Property to Brittany and Jamar Waiters; an affidavit of nullification was filed challenging DeVille’s affidavits under La. R.S. 9:5633(J).
- The Waiters sued to annul DeVille’s tax title and related filings; DeVille filed a reconventional demand asserting ownership or, alternatively, reimbursement and unjust-enrichment claims under La. R.S. 9:5633.
- The trial court sustained the Waiters’ peremptory exception of no cause of action and dismissed DeVille’s reconventional demand; the Fourth Circuit converted the appeal to a writ, granted it, reversed the dismissal, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / appealability: whether the appeal could proceed | DeVille timely sought review; conversion to supervisory writ appropriate given fairness and efficiency | Waiters argued the partial judgment dismissing a reconventional demand was non-appealable under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B) | Court converted the untimely/ non-final appeal to a writ (discretionary) because the appeal was filed within the writ period and fairness warranted immediate review |
| Whether DeVille stated a cause of action for ownership under La. R.S. 9:5633 | DeVille claimed she complied with the statute’s spirit and steps and thus acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription | Waiters argued DeVille admitted failure to complete at least one required step (e.g., the 270-day occupancy/demolition rule), so she cannot obtain title under the statute | Court accepted that DeVille failed to meet all statutory requirements and cannot obtain title by La. R.S. 9:5633; the ownership claim under the statute is not viable as pleaded |
| Whether failure to complete all statutory steps bars recovery of reimbursement under La. R.S. 9:5633(E) | DeVille argued she remains entitled to reimbursement for monies advanced (repairs, taxes, etc.) even if she did not acquire title | Waiters argued reimbursement claims (and lien enforcement) were against prior owners (Successions), not them, and that tax-sale certificate confers only a lien | Court held DeVille stated a cause of action for reimbursement under La. R.S. 9:5633(E); failure to secure title does not automatically preclude statutory reimbursement relief against the property owners |
| Appropriateness of sustaining a partial exception of no cause of action | DeVille argued her theories (ownership, reimbursement, unjust enrichment) arise from one transaction and must survive together; she sought leave to amend if needed | Waiters relied on the exception to dismiss reconventional claims now | Court applied Subaru/Everything on Wheels: where multiple theories arise from the same operative facts, a partial dismissal is improper; the trial court erred in sustaining the exception and denying leave to amend; exception reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. City of New Orleans, 190 So.3d 422 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (appellate courts must address subject-matter jurisdiction and may convert appeals to writs in proper circumstances)
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (multi-theory pleading rule: partial no-cause dismissal improper when theories arise from same transaction)
- City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 640 So.2d 237 (La. 1994) (standards on reviewing exceptions of no cause of action)
- Farmco, Inc. v. W. Baton Rouge Parish Governing Council, 789 So.2d 568 (La. 2001) (exception of no cause of action tests whether law affords a remedy on alleged facts)
- Mouledoux v. Skipper, 104 So.3d 585 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (interpretation of La. R.S. 9:5633 and recognition that reimbursement under 9:5633(E) can survive strict-statute noncompliance)
- Ferrari v. Nola Renewal Group, LLC, 194 So.3d 1246 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (applied Mouledoux; reimbursement may be available where remediator failed one statutory step)
- Couvillion Group, L.L.C. v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 286 So.3d 1129 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2019) (principles on de novo review of no-cause exceptions and limits on merits review)