343 So.3d 299
La. Ct. App.2022Background
- Walker purchased 4845 Tulip Street in 1999; the City held a tax sale for 2014 taxes in March 2015 and Precept purchased the tax-sale title. Precept recorded the tax-sale certificate in April 2015 and sent post-sale notice; the City also mailed notices to Walker.
- The three-year constitutional redemption period expired in April 2018 without redemption. Precept filed to quiet title under La. R.S. 47:2266 in November 2018; Walker was served and a preliminary default was entered, later vacated and reinstated through supervisory writs before the Supreme Court reinstated the new-trial grant.
- Walker filed an answer in December 2020 asserting (1) a payment of 2014 taxes evidenced by a September 11, 2014 receipt and (2) a “compromise” (settlement) memorialized in counsel email exchanges.
- Precept moved for summary judgment in April 2021 to quiet title and confirm ownership; Walker opposed, submitting an affidavit, the Receipt, and email exhibits; a motion for new trial and procedural disputes followed.
- The trial court granted Precept’s summary judgment in August 2021; Walker appealed. On appeal the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Precept) | Defendant's Argument (Walker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Receipt / payment nullity: Does Walker’s 2014 receipt create a genuine issue of fact and invalidate the tax sale? | Receipt at best shows payment of sale costs or partial payment; statutory scheme limits nullity challenges and Precept’s recorded tax-sale certificate is prima facie valid; burden shifted to Walker to produce facts. | Receipt proves taxes were paid before sale, which under pre-2009 doctrine would void the sale; thus summary judgment improper. | Court: Only a payment nullity could apply under post-2008 law, but Walker did not timely bring a nullity action; her claim was prescribed under La. R.S. 47:2287 and the Receipt does not create a genuine issue. |
| Compromise: Do the emails between counsel establish a valid compromise/settlement preventing quiet-title relief? | No enforceable compromise — no offer and acceptance; emails do not show mutual intent and reciprocal concessions required for a compromise. | Emails memorialize an agreement by Precept to accept payment and quitclaim by a deadline; material fact exists. | Court: No meeting of the minds or required offer/acceptance as a matter of law; emails do not create a valid compromise. |
| Procedural: Should Precept have raised its defenses by peremptory exception to permit Walker to amend rather than by summary judgment? | There was no pleading susceptible to a peremptory exception and amendment would be futile because any payment-nullity claim is prescribed. | Filing summary judgment instead of an exception deprived Walker of the opportunity to amend her pleadings under La. C.C.P. art. 934. | Court: Argument unpersuasive; amendment is discretionary and would not cure the prescribed payment-nullity claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planchard v. New Hotel Monteleone, LLC, 332 So.3d 623 (La. 2021) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Cent. Properties v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC, 225 So.3d 441 (La. 2017) (explaining post-2008 tax-sale statutory scheme and that tax-sale certificates do not automatically transfer property interest)
- Stow-Serge v. Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc., 302 So.3d 71 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (identifying the three statutorily enumerated post-2008 nullities)
- Precept Credit Opportunities Fund, LP v. Walker, 302 So.3d 1 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (prior writ disposition relevant to procedural history)
- Precept Credit Opportunities Fund, LP v. Walker, 304 So.3d 68 (La. 2020) (Supreme Court supervisory writ affecting trial-court proceedings)
- Heirs of John Beckwith LLC v. Sims, 315 So.3d 306 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021) (illustrative of pre-2008 payment-nullity approach cited by Walker)
- McRae v. Ellis, 632 So.2d 841 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994) (offer and acceptance required to form binding compromise)