238 So. 3d 465
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Forstalls sued to quiet title to New Orleans property, alleging prior tax sale to City (1986) was null for lack of notice and thus City's later donation to Reconcile conveyed no interest.
- One-day bench trial in July 2016 was limited/bifurcated to the issue of notice for the second tax sale; trial court orally ruled for Forstalls on nullity of that sale.
- Written January 17, 2017 judgment declared the October 2, 1986 tax sale to the City a nullity; court reserved other issues (title, reimbursements/taxes) for later.
- Meanwhile, Reconcile moved for summary judgment in Sept. 2016; the trial court granted it on November 18, 2016 and dismissed Reconcile with prejudice (November Judgment).
- Forstalls appealed both judgments; appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction over the January Judgment (non-appealable bifurcated order not timely appealed) but had jurisdiction over the November Judgment and reversed it.
- Court reversed the summary judgment because Reconcile failed to attach admissible documentary support as required by La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(2)/(A)(4) and thus failed to carry its initial burden on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the November 18, 2016 summary judgment dismissing Reconcile was proper | Forstalls: Reconcile offered no supporting documents; trial evidence was insufficiently pleaded for summary judgment | Reconcile: Trial testimony/exhibits previously filed proved no genuine issue; City donated clear title to Reconcile | Reversed — Reconcile failed to file admissible documents with its motion as required by art. 966, so it did not make a prima facie showing |
| Whether the January 17, 2017 bifurcated judgment declaring the 1986 tax sale null is appealable | Forstalls: timely appeal of favorable nullity judgment | City/Reconcile: (not argued here) | Dismissed as to the January Judgment — non-appealable under art. 1915(B) and not timely converted to a writ application |
| Whether trial transcript or prior-record exhibits could be considered on summary judgment | Forstalls: such trial testimony is not proper summary judgment documentary evidence absent attachment | Reconcile: relied on previously filed exhibits and trial testimony without attaching them to the motion | Court: Trial transcript/exhibits not properly before the court under art. 966(D)(2)/(A)(4); movant must attach allowed documents |
| Whether movant met burden to shift burden to opponent on summary judgment | Forstalls: movant did not present prima facie case; burden never shifted | Reconcile: contended facts undisputed based on record/testimony | Court: Burden never shifted because mover did not present admissible supporting documents; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Moulton v. Stewart Enters., Inc., 226 So.3d 569 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (appellate courts must sua sponte consider subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Stelluto v. Stelluto, 914 So.2d 34 (La.) (district-court judgment appealed as nonappealable may be converted to writ when filed within thirty days)
- Peironnet v. Matador Res. Co., 144 So.3d 791 (La.) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Roadrunner Transp. Sys. v. Brown, 219 So.3d 1265 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (movant must make prima facie showing before burden shifts)
- In re LoCicero, 51 So.3d 126 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (partial final judgment dismissing suit as to fewer than all parties is immediately appealable under art. 1915(A))