323 So.3d 404
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- The City of Bogalusa filed an expropriation petition to acquire unimproved Washington Parish land (partly owned by Leon Moses) to clear the approach to Carr Memorial Airport and comply with FAA safety requirements.
- The City tried to purchase the property for $22,000 but negotiations failed due to defects in Moses’s title; it filed suit on January 10, 2019 and set a March 20, 2019 bench trial date under La. R.S. 19:106 summary procedures.
- Moses was personally served on January 25, 2019; he retained counsel and filed an answer on February 4, 2019 contesting the offered valuation.
- At the March 20, 2019 bench trial the trial court denied Moses’s oral motion to continue, found the taking was for public necessity, ruled the $22,000 offer fair, declared the City owner free of encumbrances, and ordered the $22,000 deposited into the court registry.
- Moses filed a timely motion construed as a motion for new trial (motion to reconsider) which was denied; he appealed, and the appellate court recalled a show-cause as to timeliness and maintained the appeal.
- The First Circuit affirmed the expropriation judgment, upheld denial of the continuance/motion for new trial, and assessed appeal costs to Moses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of service/denial of continuance | City: Moses was personally served well before trial and procedures under La. R.S. 19:106 were followed. | Moses: Insufficient notice to him and counsel; requested continuance. | Service was adequate (personal service Jan 25); Moses filed an answer; no peremptory grounds for continuance; trial court did not abuse its discretion. |
| Public necessity and just compensation | City: Taking necessary for FAA compliance and air-safety; $22,000 is fair market value and was deposited. | Moses: Contested valuation. | Trial court found public necessity and the offered amount fair; expropriation and deposit affirmed; Moses retains statutory remedies to contest compensation post-occupation. |
| Appealability / motion to reconsider | City: The pleading was a timely motion for new trial in substance; appeal should be treated as from the final judgment. | Moses: Filed motion to reconsider and appealed denial. | Pleading properly construed as a motion for new trial; appeal maintained as from final judgment; show-cause recalled. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Tammany Parish Hospital v. Burris, 804 So. 2d 960 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2001) (denial of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion and trial courts have broad discretion under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1601).
- Greene v. Succession of Alvarado, 210 So. 3d 321 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2016) (a pleading seeking substantive modification within the motion-for-new-trial delays is properly construed as a motion for new trial).
- Hickman v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 255 So. 3d 1097 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2018) (denial of a motion for new trial is interlocutory but an appeal may be maintained as from the final judgment where circumstances show the appellant intended to appeal the merits).
- Harris v. Louisiana Dep’t of Public Safety & Corrections, 301 So. 3d 211 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2020) (addresses procedural effect of motions labeled "reconsideration" and their treatment under appellate practice).