165 So. 3d 1131
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- David lived on land since 1982 in a mobile home he claimed he owned before marrying Darlene in 1998; their trailer was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and a new house was built on the same land using FEMA and charitable funds during the marriage.
- Darlene filed for divorce in 2009 and obtained a protective order awarding her exclusive use of the family residence; divorce was granted in 2010 with partition reserved.
- David filed a "Motion for Return of Separate Property" (summary proceeding) alleging the land (and house) were his separate property and seeking an order requiring Darlene to vacate; his primary evidence was requests for admissions and responses.
- The trial court granted David’s motion in 2013, effectively classifying the property as David’s separate property and ordering Darlene to vacate; Darlene’s motion for new trial was denied.
- On appeal the court found the record lacked title evidence that David owned the land, the requests for admission were insufficient to establish ownership of the specific parcel, and the procedural vehicle used was improper for resolving the disputed ownership issue.
- The appellate court vacated the portion classifying the property as David’s separate property, reversed the eviction order, and remanded for proceedings under the mandatory partition/settlement procedure in La. R.S. 9:2801.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (David) | Defendant's Argument (Darlene) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the land/house are David's separate property and he is entitled to its return | Darlene admitted David owned a home/land prior to marriage; that admission and his long possession prove separate ownership and right to possession | Ownership disputed; admissions were vague, not specific to the parcel; record title points to an unopened succession (Celestine Durden); David did not prove title | Motion failed to state a cause of action; trial court erred to classify property as David’s separate property without proof of title |
| Whether requests for admissions may supply conclusive proof of ownership | Requests admitted that David owned "land" before marriage, which David says proves separate ownership | Admission was too vague, arguably a legal conclusion, and cannot substitute for title evidence when ownership is contested | Admissions insufficient to establish ownership of the specific property at issue |
| Whether the summary proceeding used was an appropriate procedural vehicle (partition/petitory/possessory/eviction) | Proceeding sought return of separate property and eviction — summary route was proper to obtain possession | The dispute touches community partition and title; La. R.S. 9:2801 sets mandatory procedures; petitory/possessory requirements not met; eviction prerequisites not satisfied | Proceeding was procedurally improper; partition must follow La. R.S. 9:2801 mandatory scheme; eviction order reversed |
| Whether trial court should have granted a new trial based on post-judgment title opinion | — | Darlene presented a title opinion showing the land belonged to the estate of Celestine Durden and argued the new evidence required a new trial | Appellate court did not decide the new-trial ruling because it found the Motion legally deficient; remanded for proper proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolis v. Bd. of Sup’vrs of Louisiana State University, 660 So.2d 1206 (La. 1995) (discusses res judicata effect of appellate review)
- Carriere v. Bank of Louisiana, 702 So.2d 648 (La. 1997) (law of the case and preclusion principles)
- Ross v. Ross, 857 So.2d 384 (La. 2003) (burden to rebut presumption that property in possession during marriage is community)
- Jemison v. Timpton, 38 So.3d 1021 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (factual classification of property reviewed for manifest error)
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (scope of no-cause-of-action exception)
- Pure Oil Co. v. Skinner, 294 So.2d 797 (La. 1974) (plaintiff not in possession must show title against the world in petitory action)
- Moody Inv. Corp. v. Occupants of 901 East 70th St., 990 So.2d 119 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (eviction petitioner must make prima facie showing of title and that purpose of occupancy has ceased)
- Powell v. Department of Highways, 383 So.2d 425 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1980) (purpose of requests for admissions to avoid proving undisputed facts)