International Carriers, Inc. v. Pearl River Navigation, Inc.
166 So. 3d 1114
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- This is an appeal from a concursus proceeding over funds deposited in the court registry related to a SOAP property sale operated by the City.
- Plaintiffs/appellants Josh Jones and Waterfront Developers; Fayard and JJK & A Holding Corporation; and James Moore, Pamela Moore, and Landman, LLC claimed entitlement to the funds.
- PRN paid $190,000 for an assignment of the City’s right to purchase the property, after the City’s $40,000 purchase price was paid by PRN directly to the City.
- The escrow funds were distributed per an escrow agreement: $23,000 to Keller Williams; $40,000 to Moore; $40,000 to JJK & A; and $87,000 to Jones/Becky Jones, with the City as the payer of the remainder.
- The trial court awarded part of the funds to the City, a non-party to the concursus, and also awarded some funds to the other claimants.
- On appeal, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for distribution among the actual impleaded claimants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to award funds to a non-party | Jones, Fayard, Moore | City | Yes; the trial court lacked authority to award to the City |
| Whether the City had a right to the concursus funds | City had no impleaded claim | City asserted entitlement | No; City not impleaded and had no enforceable claim |
| Whether equity can distribute funds contrary to statutory concursus rules | Equity supported City recovery | Equity not controlling; statutory scheme controls | No; equity cannot override concursus rules |
| Whether unjust enrichment supported awarding funds to the City | No justification for City enrichment | City enrichment justified by unconventional outcome | No; unjust enrichment not supported |
| Proper disposition of funds after vacating the City award | Distribute to actual claimants | Distribution to City was improper | Remand to distribute among impleaded claimants |
Key Cases Cited
- Oakville Community Action Group v. Plaquemines Parish Council, 7 So.3d 25 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional limits in concursus; de novo review applicable)
- Wills v. National Automotive Ins., 926 So.2d 771 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2006) (interpleader funds disposition; impleaded claimants must prove claims)
- Landry & Passman Realty, Inc. v. Beadle, 303 So.2d 761 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1974) (rules of concursus proceedings apply; statutory framing)
- Dupont v. Hebert, 984 So.2d 800 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2008) (equity cannot override positive law)