265 So. 3d 1202
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- 2010: Collins received a “Deed Subject to Mortgage” from Hill after paying $5,000; she allegedly made substantial additional payments and improvements and was to make mortgage payments to Hill.
- April 2013: Collins executed a deed reconveying the property to Hill (recited as a return subject to the mortgage); parties dispute whether this was voluntary, fraudulent, or to avoid foreclosure. Hill then sought eviction.
- Collins sued (April 2013) to vindicate ownership, alleging breach of contract and fraud; Hill counterclaimed for rent or dissolution of the sale for nonpayment and sought eviction.
- Court-ordered payments: Collins was ordered to deposit payments into the court registry; some funds were paid into the registry, and Hill allegedly retained at least one check given directly to him.
- 2017: Hill moved for summary judgment seeking dissolution of the 2010 sale under La. C.C. art. 2561, award of registry funds to him, and eviction; at hearing Hill’s counsel judicially admitted the 2010 instrument was a valid sale.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Hill awarding him the property, all funds paid (registry and otherwise), and terminating Collins’s possession; appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collins) | Defendant's Argument (Hill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Genuine issues of material fact exist (ownership status, payments made, fraud, improvements) so summary judgment is inappropriate | Collins breached payment obligations; whether lease or sale, result (eviction/dissolution) is same and summary judgment appropriate | Reversed: genuine issues of material fact (payment, offsets, improvements, accounting, extensions) preclude summary judgment |
| Character of the 2010/2013 transfers (sale vs. lease) | 2010 was a sale; 2013 reconveyance was disputed as possibly fraudulent; ownership issue must be resolved before eviction | Initially argued lease, later conceded at hearing that 2010 instrument is a valid sale | Court treated counsel’s concession as a judicial admission that 2010 was a sale, but factual disputes remained on consequences |
| Whether Collins failed to pay price entitling Hill to dissolution under La. C.C. art. 2561 | Collins contests default; affidavit asserts payments (including $19,864) and ability to pay mortgage; genuine dispute exists | Hill produced an affidavit asserting delinquencies and sought dissolution for nonpayment | Reversed: material factual dispute over payments/arrearage; Hill failed to carry summary judgment burden |
| Proper remedy and accounting if dissolution is warranted | If sale dissolves, Collins may be entitled to return of payments and payment for improvements; offsets (fair rental value) and possible extension to pay are factual issues | Hill seeks dissolution, retention of registry funds, and eviction | Reversed: remedies under art. 2561 require complex accounting (return of payments, credit for improvements, rental offsets) and court discretion (art. 2562 extension); these cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Peironnet v. Matador Res. Co., 144 So.3d 791 (La. 2013) (standard and de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 144 So.3d 876 (La. 2014) (definition of genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment)
- Sliman v. McBee, 311 So.2d 248 (La. 1975) (dissolution of sale: buyer entitled to return of amounts paid when sale annulled)
- Stroope v. Smith, 199 So.3d 612 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (payment timing under sale and discussion of remedies for nonpayment)
- United States v. Maniscalco, 523 F. Supp. 1338 (E.D. La. 1981) (buyer holds defeasible title until full payment; sale subject to judicial dissolution)