216 So. 3d 170
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Riddle was hired to direct MSO's fundraiser; a written contract existed but was unsigned; Riddle alleges she was not paid agreed compensation and sued MSO and Premier Plaza for breach of contract.
- Trial before Monroe City Court Judge Aisha Clark resulted in a final judgment dismissing Riddle’s claims with prejudice (July 1, 2015).
- After judgment, Riddle discovered Judge Clark had served on the Monroe Symphony Orchestra (MSO) board (2009–11) and that several board members had testified for MSO at trial.
- Riddle filed a petition to annul the judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 2004, arguing an ill practice: Judge Clark’s undisclosed disqualifying relationship with MSO required recusal under La. C.C.P. art. 151; she also sought attorney fees under art. 2004(C).
- Judge Clark later self-recused from the annulment hearing; an ad hoc judge heard Riddle’s petition, which the trial court dismissed with prejudice; Riddle appealed.
- The appellate court reversed: it found Judge Clark’s prior active board service created a substantial personal interest and her failure to timely recuse was an unintentional ill practice warranting annulment; the case was remanded to determine attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the original judgment must be annulled under La. C.C.P. art. 2004 because Judge Clark failed to recuse for a disqualifying interest | Riddle: Judge Clark’s prior MSO board membership and personal connections to witnesses were a substantial interest requiring recusal; nondisclosure was an ill practice depriving Riddle of a legal right | MSO/Premier Plaza: Riddle knew or should have known of Judge Clark’s board service and could have sought recusal earlier; no intentional fraud or disqualifying conduct occurred | The court held Riddle alleged sufficient facts showing a substantial personal interest by Judge Clark; her failure to timely recuse constituted an unintentional ill practice and the original judgment was annulled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yellowbird Investments, L.L.C. v. Barber, 87 So.3d 970 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2012) (art. 2004 covers judgments obtained by improper practice depriving a party of legal rights)
- Kem Search, Inc. v. Sheffield, 434 So.2d 1067 (La. 1983) (ill practices may justify annulment even absent intent)
- Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 800 So.2d 762 (La. 2001) (review of annulment focuses on reasonableness of trial court conclusions)
- Midland Funding, LLC v. Cady, 110 So.3d 656 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2013) (requirements for annulment: deprivation of a legal right and unconscionability)
- Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light, 951 So.2d 1058 (La. 2007) (annulment standards)
- Straughter v. Hodnett, 975 So.2d 81 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (annulment standards)
- Covington v. McNeese State Univ., 32 So.3d 223 (La. 2010) (party seeking recusal must present a substantial factual basis)
- Rivet v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 680 So.2d 1154 (La. 1996) (factors for determining reasonable attorney fees)
- Sicard v. Sicard, 82 So.3d 565 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2011) (remand for attorney fee determination after annulment)
- Ezzell v. Miranne, 185 So.3d 171 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2016) (consideration of attorney fee reasonableness)