364 So.3d 55
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Treas bought 120 Alden Place in his name (VA-backed mortgage) and quitclaimed a 50% interest to Koerner during their relationship; Koerner is not on the mortgage.
- The relationship ended and Treas left the house; Treas filed a petition for partition (buy-out or partition by licitation/private sale) in January 2017.
- Multiple pretrial motions and writs followed; the trial court repeatedly ruled on discovery, exclusive use of the property, and sale method; Koerner repeatedly sought supervisory review.
- In October 2018 the trial court ordered Koerner to vacate the property by Oct. 31; she did not obtain a stay and did not vacate.
- On December 14, 2018 the trial court denied Koerner’s motion for partition by public licitation, granted Treas’ motion to reconsider a private sale, and found Koerner in constructive contempt (fines and vacatur deadline).
- The appellate court reversed the private-sale ruling (no court-ordered private sale absent owner agreement), affirmed the contempt finding, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Koerner) | Defendant's Argument (Treas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 2018 judgment is appealable | The order denying public partition and granting private sale was reviewable; appeal proper | Contempt order is final and appealable; other rulings interlocutory | The contempt ruling is a final, appealable judgment; interlocutory rulings adverse to Koerner may be reviewed on appeal so the court may address the whole judgment |
| Whether the trial court may order partition by private sale absent co-owners' agreement | Court lacks authority to impose a private sale; partition of an indivisible thing (house) must be by licitation (public auction) unless owners agree | Court has discretion under partition statutes and practical considerations (upside-down mortgage) make private sale appropriate; parties had agreed | Reversed: trial court erred. A court may not order a private sale over a co-owner’s objection; absent a definite, mutual agreement to a private sale, partition must proceed by licitation (public sale); remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the court properly found Koerner in contempt for not vacating | She challenged the contempt finding | Treas argued she willfully disobeyed the un-stayed October 2018 order to vacate | Affirmed: Koerner willfully disobeyed a lawful, un-stayed order to vacate; constructive contempt finding and fines were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Celestain, 963 So.2d 219 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (if immovable is indivisible, partition must be by licitation unless parties agree to private sale)
- Welch v. Zucco, 665 So.2d 697 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1995) (court-ordered private sale is not contemplated; private sale requires agreement of the parties)
- Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 860 So.2d 104 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2003) (limitations on partition rights are strictly construed; non-partition agreements must be definite and certain)
- Vuskovich v. Thorne, 466 So.2d 619 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1985) (trial court has discretion to direct sale conditions in licitation, including setting a minimum bid)
- Campbell v. Pasternack Holding Co., Inc., 625 So.2d 477 (La. 1993) (context for strict construction of partition limitations)
- State through Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Knapp, 216 So.3d 130 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing contempt findings; willful disobedience requires intentional, unjustified violation of an order)