220 So. 3d 6
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Hopkins contracted with St. Bernard Port in 2000 to perform Phase I of a public works project; disputes, alleged abandonment, and counterclaims followed.
- After offsetting Port damages against sums due Hopkins, a 2011 final judgment awarded Hopkins $101,306.47; the judgment became final in 2013 and the Port did not pay or appropriate funds for it.
- Hopkins sought a writ of mandamus under La. Rev. Stat. § 38:2191(D) to compel payment from funds appropriated for the contract; the district court granted mandamus in 2016 ordering payment with legal interest.
- The Port appealed, arguing mandamus cannot be used to collect a money judgment, § 38:2191(D) cannot be applied retroactively to pre-2002 matters, § 38:2191 does not apply to an already-adjudicated judgment, Hopkins failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites (final acceptance, clear lien certificate), no specific appropriation existed, and interest was improper.
- The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and factual findings for manifest error, denied the Port’s exception of no cause of action, and affirmed the mandamus judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hopkins) | Defendant's Argument (Port) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus under § 38:2191(D) may be used to secure payment of an adjudicated contract balance | § 38:2191(D) allows mandamus to compel payment of sums due under a public contract (including when a judgment fixes the amount) where appropriation exists | Mandamus cannot be used to seize public funds to collect a money judgment; constitutional and statutory limits require specific appropriation or other procedure | Mandamus is available here; the fact a judgment exists does not preclude § 38:2191(D) relief if statutory requirements are met |
| Whether § 38:2191(D) (added 2011) applies retroactively to pre-2002 contract/litigation | § 38:2191(D) is interpretive/procedural, clarifying availability of mandamus and appropriation requirement, so it may be applied retroactively | The 2011 amendment is substantive and cannot be retroactively applied to contracts or suits predating the amendment | § 38:2191(D) is interpretive and procedural (not substantive) and may be applied retroactively |
| Whether § 38:2191 governs enforcement of a pre-existing, final judgment for unpaid contract sums | § 38:2191’s purpose is prompt payment of contract obligations; final adjudication of amount does not defeat statutory mandamus remedy | The statute is not intended to permit mandamus to collect a money judgment; mandamus only compels ministerial acts, and adjudication involved discretionary determinations | § 38:2191 applies; final adjudication of amount is irrelevant if statutory predicates for mandamus are satisfied |
| Whether Hopkins satisfied § 38:2191 prerequisites (final acceptance, clear lien certificate, abandonment effects) | Final payment became due when replacement contractor completed Phase I per contract; attorney-fee prerequisites for formal acceptance do not bar mandamus for final payment | Hopkins abandoned work and did not obtain formal final acceptance or clear lien certificate; Port was justified in withholding payment | Court found Hopkins was owed a final payment under contract terms despite abandonment; requirements for mandamus here were met |
| Whether a specific appropriation existed for Hopkins’ contract as required by § 38:2191(D) | Funds were appropriated for the Project and for payment of contracts awarded for Phase I, thus satisfying the appropriation requirement | Port argues only a general project appropriation existed, not an appropriation specifically for Hopkins’ contract | Court found an appropriation was made for the award and execution of the contract and that spending those funds elsewhere does not defeat mandamus relief |
| Whether judicial interest may be awarded in a mandamus judgment under § 38:2191(D) | Interest on sums due under the contract is collectible; courts must award interest on judgments as prayed for or by law | Statute does not expressly provide for interest on contract payments; interest is a judgment remedy, not a contract remedy | Court awarded judicial (legal) interest, concluding interest is included as sums due under the contract and consistent with judgment interest rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoag v. State, 889 So.2d 1019 (La. 2004) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy limited to compelling ministerial duties)
- Quality Design & Const., Inc. v. City of Gonzales, 146 So.3d 567 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (upholding mandamus under § 38:2191(D) to enforce payment, including where a judgment exists)
- Newman Marchive P’ship v. City of Shreveport, 979 So.2d 1262 (La. 2008) (addressing limits on collection from public entities and appropriation requirements)
- Foster Constr., Inc. v. Town of Richwood, 117 So.3d 607 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2013) (mandamus unavailable where no appropriation was made)
- Jefferson Lake Sulphur Co. v. Kolb, 76 So.2d 546 (La. 1954) (mandamus may compel payment of judicially determined claims from appropriated funds)
- Mayeux v. Charlet, 203 So.3d 1030 (La. 2016) (principles for statutory interpretation and applying clear legislative language)