Smith v. Brumfield
133 So. 3d 70
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Ms. Smith purchased a tax-sale property in New Orleans after Brumfield failed to pay 2008 ad valorem taxes.
- During redemptive period, the City threatened enforcement actions for blight; Smith obtained an ex parte writ of possession and repaired the property.
- Brumfield redeemed the property with taxes and costs and re-took possession, without reimbursing Smith’s repair expenditures.
- Smith sued Brumfield seeking possession and injunctive relief; Brumfield sought injunctive relief to protect his possession; trial court denied Smith’s injunction and granted Brumfield’s.
- The court upheld that Smith had an adequate legal remedy and lacked irreparable harm, affirming the denial of injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether irreparable harm justifies injunctive relief | Smith argues irreparable harm absent relief due to expenditures. | Brumfield contends legal remedies suffice; no irreparable harm. | No irreparable harm; adequate legal remedy exists. |
| Whether writ of possession provides adequate protection for expenses | Smith relies on writ of possession to protect improvements. | Writ and remedies do not compel title; Brumfield redeemed timely. | Statutory remedies are adequate; injunction not warranted. |
| Whether the redemptive period applied was three years or eighteen months | Smith argues eighteenth-month period applies if blight/abandonment present. | Brumfield contends property not abandoned/blighted at sale; three-year period applies. | Three-year period applies; eighteenth-month period not triggered. |
| Whether Smith is likely to prevail on merits to confirm tax title | Smith seeks to confirm tax title; Brumfield’s redemption contested. | Brumfield redeemed timely; title not likely to favor Smith. | Smith unlikely to prevail on merits; no injunction. |
| Effect of redemption on writ of possession | Writ should continue post-redemption to preserve rights. | Redemption dissolves the writ; Brumfield entitled to possession. | Writ dissolved upon issuance of redemption certificate; injunction improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elysian Fields Church of Christ v. Dillon, 7 So.3d 1227 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (preliminary injunction standards; notice and hearing required)
- West v. Town of Winnsboro, 211 So.2d 665 (La.1967) (equitable relief requires lack of adequate legal remedy)
- Historic Restoration, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co., 955 So.2d 200 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2007) (irreparable harm in preliminary injunction context)
- Padilla v. Schwartz, 11 So.3d 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (eighteen-month redemptive period thresholds in blighted/abandoned context)
- Smith v. West Virginia Oil & Gas Co., 373 So.2d 488 (La.1979) (broad discretion for preliminary injunction review)