383 So.3d 160
La. Ct. App.2023Background
- Tenant Christopher Stokes rented a room from landlord Rachel Skowyra in March 2020; landlord sued for possession based on alleged lease violations.
- At the time, the CARES Act and local court procedures required landlords to file a sworn verification of non-coverage for certain federally backed mortgages when seeking eviction.
- Skowyra filed a verification form but did not initial the line verifying the mortgage was not insured/guaranteed by HUD, VA, or USDA; the trial court accepted the form and entered an eviction judgment on July 24, 2020.
- Stokes filed a motion for new trial (denied) but did not appeal; later (July 21, 2021) he filed a Petition for Nullity alleging the eviction should be annulled because the CARES Act procedures were not followed (he alleged the property was VA-covered).
- The trial court sustained Skowyra’s peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata; Stokes appealed and the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Skowyra) | Defendant's Argument (Stokes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stokes’ Petition for Nullity states a cause of action under La. C.C.P. art. 2001 et seq. based on alleged CARES Act noncompliance | CARES Act did not apply (eviction unrelated to nonpayment); thus no viable nullity claim | The defective verification and alleged federal coverage (VA loan) create a viable nullity claim to attack the eviction judgment | Petition states a cause of action; exception of no cause of action improperly sustained; reversal |
| Whether the doctrine of res judicata bars Stokes’ nullity action | The prior eviction judgment and denial of new trial preclude relitigation of the same facts | The eviction judgment’s validity is questionable because it relied on a defective verification form, so res judicata cannot apply | Res judicata does not apply because validity of the prior judgment is in doubt; exception improperly sustained; reversal |
| Whether a trial court may consider extraneous evidence when deciding an exception of no cause of action | Trial court considered evidence that eviction was unrelated to rent and thus CARES Act inapplicable | On an exception of no cause of action courts must accept petition allegations as true and not consider extraneous evidence | Trial court erred by considering extraneous evidence on the exception; appellate court reversed on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Waiters v. deVille, 299 So.3d 728 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (sets de novo standard and limits evidence consideration on an exception of no cause of action)
- Pelts & Skins, L.L.C. v. La. Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, 938 So.2d 1047 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (subscription for rule that allegations in petition must be accepted as true on no-cause-of-action exception)
- Farmco, Inc. v. W. Baton Rouge Par. Governing Council, 789 So.2d 568 (La. 2001) (clarifies limited function of exception of no cause of action)
- Igbokwe v. Moser, 116 So.3d 727 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (lists five elements required for res judicata to apply)
- BBCL Enters., LLC v. American Alt. Ins. Corp., 187 So.3d 65 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (discusses standards for reviewing res judicata exceptions)