365 So.3d 544
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Property at 4609-11 Freret St. was the subject of a 2009 tax sale; Renee deVille purchased a 1% tax title (recorded Feb. 12, 2010), took possession under a writ, and performed work.
- DeVille later filed an affidavit of intent to possess under La. R.S. 9:5633 but admitted she failed to complete one statutory step (timely certificate of occupancy).
- In 2018 the succession sold the Property to Brittany and Jamar Waiters (cash sale); the Waiters sued to annul deVille’s tax title, quiet title, and obtain injunctive relief removing deVille from possession.
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction removing deVille and later granted partial summary judgment declaring the tax sale (to deVille) null and void.
- DeVille appealed and sought supervisory writs; the appellate court converted the appeal to a writ application, consolidated the matters, granted the writ in part, vacated the injunction (in part), stayed execution of the nullity judgment (in part), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Waiters) | Defendant's Argument (deVille) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction during pendency of prior appeal/writ | Trial court could proceed because deVille’s prior appeal had been converted to a writ and no stay remained; further proceedings were not reviewable by that interlocutory appeal | Trial court was divested of jurisdiction by the pending appeal/order of appeal (La. C.C.P. art. 2088) | Appellate court converted the appeal to a writ and held trial court was not divested of jurisdiction absent an express stay; trial court could hear the injunction motion. |
| Partial summary judgment: tax-sale nullity | The tax sale was constitutionally and statutorily defective (advertisement timing/noncompliance) and thus should be annulled; Waiters sought recognition of sole ownership | DeVille pointed to the recorded tax deed as prima facie evidence of validity and alleged genuine factual disputes (ownership, standing, procedural compliance) | Court held summary judgment on tax-sale nullity was proper: record showed noncompliance with advertising/notice requirements and deVille had not perfected ownership by prescription; no genuine issue on nullity. |
| Requirement to fix redemptive costs before annulling deed | Waiters focused on nullity and ownership relief | DeVille argued the judgment annulling a tax sale cannot take effect until redemptive/costs are fixed and paid (constitutional/statutory requirement) | Appellate court agreed that the trial court could not cancel the deed without fixing redemptive costs; it stayed execution of the nullity judgment until costs are fixed and paid. |
| Preliminary injunction (removal, mandatory vs. prohibitory; security; evidentiary hearing) | Waiters sought injunctive relief to remove deVille and preserve property/security; argued prima facie showing supported relief | DeVille argued injunction functioned as a mandatory (not prohibitory) relief, required a full evidentiary hearing and security; trial court lacked authority to divest possession without trial and without fixing reimbursement to a possessor/improvements | Court found the trial court effectively issued mandatory relief without an evidentiary trial and without properly handling security; it vacated the injunction (remanded for full evidentiary hearing). Security issue was later mooted by bond posting; appellate court remanded for possible attorney-fees determination under Art. 3608. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waiters v. deVille, 299 So. 3d 728 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (prior appeal converted to writ; recited relevant factual and procedural history)
- Stow-Serge v. Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc., 302 So. 3d 71 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (explains modern limits on attacking tax sales and the due-notice/redemption nullity framework)
- Mooring Tax Asset Group, L.L.C. v. James, 156 So. 3d 1143 (La.) (addresses annulment limits and consequences for tax-sales procedure and costs)
- Central Properties v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC, 225 So. 3d 447 (La.) (discussion of tax-sale title and its effect)
- Western Lands v. Lindsay, 307 So. 2d 412 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (holding that improper timing of required advertisement can invalidate a tax sale)
- Arco Oil & Gas Co. v. DeShazer, 728 So. 2d 841 (La.) (Article 3608 damages for wrongful injunction are discretionary)
- Alpha Capital US Bank v. White, 268 So. 3d 1124 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (discusses relative nullities and statutory limits on attacking tax sales)