224 So. 3d 1055
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Ernest “Freddie” Charbonnet filed a notarized Notice of Candidacy for Orleans Parish City Council District E on July 13, 2017, certifying that he filed (or was excused/extended) all federal and state returns for the prior five years as required by La. R.S. 18:463(A)(2)(a).
- Plaintiffs Cassandra and Keion Smith filed an Objection to Candidacy on July 21, 2017, alleging Charbonnet had not filed state returns for 2012 and 2016.
- LDR records produced in discovery could not confirm receipt of Charbonnet’s 2012 and 2016 state returns; an LDR witness so testified at trial.
- Charbonnet testified he relied on his CPA’s office (affidavit from a supervisor and employee statements) and his wife’s mailing of the 2012 return; stamped copy showed LDR received the 2012 return on July 17, 2017 (after he signed the candidacy form).
- Trial court denied the objection, finding Charbonnet lacked intent to falsely certify and relied in good faith on his CPA; the court of appeal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Charbonnet falsely certified filing of prior five years’ returns | Plaintiffs: LDR has no record for 2012 and 2016; certification therefore false | Charbonnet: he reasonably relied on CPA assurances and believed returns/extensions were filed | Held: Prima facie case met; Charbonnet failed to prove returns were "filed" under LDR rules, so certification false |
| Whether candidate’s subjective intent/good faith is relevant | Plaintiffs: Trial court erred to consider subjective intent; Burns II forecloses intent inquiry | Charbonnet: his good-faith reliance negates disqualifying false certification | Held: Subjective intent is irrelevant; objective filing under LDR rules controls |
| What evidence satisfies rebuttal burden after prima facie showing | Plaintiffs: LDR confirmation absence shifts burden to candidate to prove filing | Charbonnet: testimony and CPA affidavits suffice to rebut | Held: Candidate must meet LDR’s filing standard (e.g., postmark/delivery rules); affidavits and assurances insufficient without proof of delivery |
| Whether case should be dismissed for late trial setting under La. R.S. 18:1409(A)(1) | Charbonnet: trial was set later than statutory deadline; dismissal warranted | Plaintiffs: judiciary scheduling issues excuse setting beyond deadline | Held: Not dismissed where record shows multiple judicial recusals and no evidence plaintiff caused delay or prejudice; Scoggins rationale applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Russo v. Burns, 147 So.3d 1111 (La. 2014) (candidate must show returns were filed as defined by LDR regulations; certified mailing/delivery controls filing date)
- Nixon v. Hughes, 176 So.3d 1135 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (appellate standards and holding that intent is not controlling when certification contradicts filing proof)
- Scoggins v. Jones, 442 So.2d 1202 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1984) (trial scheduling responsibility lies with trial judge; absence of plaintiff involvement or defendant prejudice negates dismissal for late setting)