370 So.3d 1191
La. Ct. App.2023Background
- Property: 8455 Beechwood Court, New Orleans. Lepree bought tax-sale title (purchase date April 10, 2018; certificate dated May 9, 2018) after unpaid 2016–2017 ad valorem taxes.
- Lepree filed a petition (June 14, 2021) to confirm tax-sale title and quiet title against recorded parties Christopher Dorsey and Cheryl Fields.
- Court appointed a curator ad hoc to represent absentees; the curator was served and filed an answer on behalf of Dorsey and Fields and later documented repeated efforts to locate/notify Fields (certified mail, phone, publication, social media) and eventually spoke with her.
- Lepree moved for summary judgment (May 13, 2022) attaching the tax-sale certificate and an affidavit that the sale was unredeemed and no annulment suit had been filed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment (Aug. 11, 2022) confirming Lepree as sole owner and enjoining Fields; Fields’ motion for new trial was denied (Oct. 3, 2022). Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lepree) | Defendant's Argument (Fields) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment confirming tax-sale title was proper | Tax-sale certificate is prima facie valid; three-year redemptive period expired and six-month annulment window after service lapsed | Tax sale is voidable because Fields did not receive required post-sale notice and thus could annul | Granted for Lepree: tax-sale certificate shifted burden; Fields failed to present competent evidence to rebut validity |
| Whether post-sale notice (La. R.S. 47:2156) was required/provided | Not required to prove every mailing once tax-sale certificate offered; Lepree’s certificate and affidavit rebut redemption/annulment claims | No competent proof Lepree or the tax collector sent statutorily required post-sale notices to Fields | Held Lepree met her burden; Fields presented no affidavits or admissible evidence to create genuine issue |
| Whether service on curator ad hoc satisfied due-process/ six-month-annulment notice | Service on curator ad hoc who exercised reasonable diligence to locate/notify satisfies notice and La. R.S. definitions of "duly notified" | Curator failed to show he actually delivered the petition to Fields (no return receipt) and thus service was insufficient | Held service on curator ad hoc was sufficient; curator’s documented efforts met reasonable-diligence and La. R.S. definitions |
| Whether denial of new trial was erroneous | Summary judgment was correct; no new facts or evidence that would justify a new trial | Trial court should grant new trial because Fields lacked notice of post-sale procedures | Denial affirmed: Fields merely reasserted prior arguments and did not meet burden for a new trial; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cent. Props. v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC, 225 So.3d 441 (La. 2017) (statute version at time of sale controls)
- NAR Sols., Inc. v. Kuhn, 354 So.3d 1176 (La. 2022) (tax-sale certificate shifts burden to former owner to prove defects)
- Pamplemoussier, L.L.C. v. Poche, 187 So.3d 480 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2013) (argument or unauthenticated affidavit insufficient to rebut prima facie validity)
- Libertas Tax Fund I, LLC v. Laiche, 340 So.3d 236 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2021) (summary judgment proper where owner only alleged lack of notice without competent evidence)
- Gulf Coast Bank & Tr. v. Warren, 125 So.3d 1211 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (service on court-appointed curator ad hoc can satisfy due-process/service requirements)