Shields v. Parish of Jefferson
131 So. 3d 1048
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Shields filed a petition for damages and injunction alleging fraud by the Parish, the Department of Inspection and Code Enforcement, and Danos for billing him for debris removal and grass cutting on property the Parish claimed as its own.
- Shields alleged a planned tax sale of his property in retaliation for nonpayment of the allegedly fraudulent bill and sought damages, lien removal, and an injunction.
- The Parish moved for summary judgment arguing Danos’ work was lawfully performed on Shields’ property, supported by inspection files, invoices, and photographs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on February 22, 2013, dismissing Shields’ claims with prejudice, and Shields appealed the ruling.
- On appeal, the court held there were genuine issues of material fact about ownership/control of the property where Danos performed work and about whether the billed work was done on Shields’ property.
- The court also held the constitutional challenge to Ordinance 19-21a was not properly before it because it was not properly pleaded in the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine issue of fact about ownership of the property where Danos performed services. | Shields owns the property in dispute. | Parish records show Shields owned the property per an Act of Cash Sale. | Issue of material fact; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether billing Shields for Danos’ services constitutes fraud given the disputed location of work. | Work billed was not performed on Shields’ property. | Work billed was performed under contract on Shields’ property as evidenced by records. | Genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether the Parish’s removal of a lien related to the second invoice implies fraud or improper tax-sale conduct. | Parish’s actions reflect fraudulent notice of a tax sale. | Actions were in accordance with law; the lien was removed legitimately. | Not conclusively decided on appeal due to factual issues and procedural posture |
| Whether Ordinance 19-21a is unconstitutional and properly appealable in this proceeding. | Ordinance 19-21a imposes a 100% surcharge and is unconstitutional. | Constitutionality not properly raised on appeal; requires trial-court challenge. | Not properly before the appellate court; remand/avoid ruling on constitutionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogoz v. Tangipahoa Parish Council, 21 So.3d 923 (La. 2009) (constitutional challenge must be raised in trial court)
- Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 646 So.2d 859 (La. 1994) (statutory unconstitutionality must be pleaded specifically)
- S.J. v. Lafayette Parish School Bd., 959 So.2d 884 (La. 2007) (summary judgment standards and deference to factual disputes)
- Callis v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Service, Dist. # 1, 975 So.2d 641 (La. 2007) (summary judgment and burden of proof elements)
- Taylor v. Dowling Gosslee & Associates, Inc., 22 So.3d 246 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2009) (fraud elements and burden of proof in civil actions)
- Mooers v. Sosa, 798 So.2d 200 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2001) (fraud requires intent and resulting loss)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (concept of genuine issues of material fact for summary judgment)