366 So.3d 409
La. Ct. App.2022Background
- Karen Lewis bought property at 4716-18 Rosemont Place in New Orleans in 2006; she failed to pay 2013–2014 ad valorem taxes.
- Tax sale occurred in March 2015; Precept Credit Opportunities Fund, L.P. acquired a 100% tax-sale interest and recorded a tax-sale certificate in April 2015.
- After the three-year redemption period elapsed (April 28, 2018) without redemption, Precept filed a monition under La. R.S. 47:2271–2280 to confirm and homologate its tax-sale title.
- Lewis opposed, arguing defective pre-sale notice (due-process defect) and later disputed the redemption amount.
- Trial court granted Precept’s motion for summary judgment (Dec. 15, 2020) and entered a final judgment (Apr. 8, 2021) confirming Precept’s title, terminating Lewis’s interest, and authorizing a writ of possession.
- Lewis appealed; Precept answered seeking frivolous-appeal damages. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and denied the frivolous-appeal request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of issues raised on appeal | Lewis: she did not raise some arguments below but contends waiver rule should not bar review because Precept and the court addressed the post-sale notice issue | Precept: Lewis waived issues she failed to raise below | Court: Refused to apply waiver rule because Precept raised the issue below and the trial court decided it; monition context buttresses review (Lambert v. Bond rationale) |
| Validity of post-sale notice (La. R.S. 47:2156) | Lewis: post-sale notice was deficient because it omitted the amount due to redeem, depriving her of due process | Precept: post-sale notice met statutory/due-process requirements; Lewis actually received notice and had contact about the sale | Court: Omission of dollar amount is not fatal; notice satisfied due process (followed Stow-Serge and Side by Side Redevelopment) |
| Genuine issue of material fact — redemption amount | Lewis: disputed redemption amount, creating a material fact issue precluding summary judgment | Precept: three-year redemption period expired; redemption amount is no longer material | Court: After redemptive period lapsed, right to redeem ended; redemption amount is not a material fact; summary judgment proper |
| Frivolous-appeal damages | Precept: appeal is frivolous; seek damages and declaratory relief that appellee need not file an answer or cross-appeal to seek such damages | Lewis: appeal not frivolous | Court: Denied damages; refused declaratory relief; appeals favored and the record did not show the appeal was unquestionably frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. Bond, 102 So.2d 467 (La. 1958) (monition context; waiver rule inapplicable where another party raised the issue below and the trial court decided it)
- Stow-Serge v. Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc., 302 So.3d 71 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (post-sale notice omissions, including redemption amount, are not fatal to due-process compliance)
- Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc. v. Magee, 324 So.3d 688 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021) (same; omission of overdue-tax or redemption dollar amount in post-sale notice not fatal)
- Moulton v. Stewart Enterprises, 226 So.3d 569 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (final judgments affecting immovable property must describe the property with particularity; decretal language required)
- Robertson v. Kearney Cos., 315 So.3d 931 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021) (redemption amount is not material once the redemption period expires)
- Alexander v. La. State Bd. of Private Investigator Examiners, 293 So.3d 1243 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (standard for awarding frivolous-appeal damages; appeals are favored and damages require an unquestionably frivolous appeal)