241 So. 3d 508
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Gadrel filed a petition for partition by licitation claiming it acquired a one-half interest in 3150 Augusta Street by an Act of Cash Sale from Betty Joyce Williams; Arthur Williams was alleged co-owner.
- Arthur Williams initially admitted the factual allegations of the sale and co-ownership in his answer but later sought to amend to add affirmative defenses asserting the sale was invalid under spousal-concurrence rules (La. C.C. art. 2347) and alleging lesion beyond moiety.
- The trial court granted leave to amend, rendering Gadrel’s first motion for judgment on the pleadings moot; Gadrel then filed a second motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- Arthur filed the amended answer (raising invalidity of the sale) but did not oppose the second motion or appear at the hearing; the trial court granted the motion and entered judgment declaring each party owned an undivided one-half interest, ordering partition by licitation, and directing sale without appraisal with net proceeds split evenly.
- Arthur filed a devolutive appeal but did not obtain a suspensive appeal; the property was sold on September 20, 2017. On appeal, Arthur argued the sale to Gadrel was invalid because his spousal concurrence was not obtained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings declaring co-ownership and authorizing partition by licitation | Admissions in Arthur’s answer (to facts that Gadrel acquired a 1/2 interest) establish Gadrel’s co-ownership and right to partition; affirmative defenses do not overcome admissions | Although Arthur admitted the facts of the sale, he did not admit its legal validity; amended answer raised an affirmative defense that the sale was invalid for lack of spousal concurrence (La. C.C. art. 2347) | Reversed: conflict in the pleadings (affirmative defense of invalidity) precluded judgment on the pleadings; trial court erred in granting the motion |
| Whether portions of the judgment ordering seizure/sale and splitting sale proceeds may be reversed given the sale occurred | Gadrel: judgment valid and executory | Arthur: challenges validity of sale and resulting co-ownership; sought reversal | Dismissed as moot in part: because Arthur failed to obtain a suspensive appeal and the judicial sale was consummated, appellate court cannot undo the seizure/sale; appeal limited to partition of proceeds and ownership declaration |
Key Cases Cited
- Crosstex LIG, L.L.C. v. Clark, 128 So.3d 1057 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2013) (judgment ordering sale for partition is executory after suspensive appeal delay; sale renders related appellate challenge moot)
- Hagstette v. Wadsworth, 57 So.2d 222 (La. 1952) (partition sale becomes executory after appeal delay; failure to obtain suspensive appeal bars undoing a consummated sale)
- Cooley v. Merriman, 590 So.2d 718 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1991) (same principle: completed judicial sale precludes appellate reversal of seizure/sale)
- Serio v. Chadwick, 66 So.2d 9 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1953) (motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only if pleadings exclude every reasonable hypothesis for opposing party)
- Power v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 193 So.3d 471 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2016) (questions of law on motions for judgment on the pleadings are reviewed de novo)