State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Office of Community Development - Disaster Recovery Unit v. Stephanie B. Poree A/K/A Stephanie Brookins Poree, 355 So.3d 1105

Background

Defendant Stephanie Poree owned a Katrina‑damaged home and participated in Louisiana’s federally funded Road Home program. She received an Elevation Incentive grant ($30,000) and an Individual Mitigation Measures grant ($7,500).
Poree signed an Elevation Incentive Agreement (EIA) and an Individual Mitigation Measures Agreement (IMMA); both documents in the record lack clear effective/signing dates and contain obligations with ambiguous terms (e.g., “elevate to ABFE within three years” and “use best efforts” for mitigation).
The State sued (Dec. 2018) seeking repayment of the two grants ($37,500) for alleged breaches of the EIA and IMMA. A curator was appointed for Poree; the curator did not effectively oppose the State’s motion for summary judgment.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the State (Sept. 22, 2021) and denied Poree’s motion for new trial; Poree appealed.
On de novo review, the Fourth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact (contract ambiguity, lack of dates, insufficient evidence of noncompliance) and reversed the summary judgment; the court remanded the peremptory exceptions filed on appeal back to the trial court for a hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State was entitled to summary judgment on breach of the Elevation Incentive Agreement (EIA) and repayment of $30,000	Poree signed the EIA obligating elevation to ABFE within three years; she failed to elevate, so she must repay $30,000	The EIA is ambiguous as to purpose/obligations and contains no effective/signing date; funds could have been used for repairs; genuine factual issues exist	Reversed: genuine issues of material fact (contract ambiguous; lack of proof of breach); summary judgment inappropriate
Whether the State was entitled to summary judgment on breach of the Individual Mitigation Measures Agreement (IMMA) and repayment of $7,500	Poree agreed to use “best efforts” to mitigate within three years and failed to demonstrate compliance, so she must repay $7,500	IMMA obligations are open‑ended and non‑exhaustive; no effective date or mechanism to prove compliance; State presented insufficient evidence of noncompliance	Reversed: genuine issues of fact as to obligations and compliance; summary judgment inappropriate
Whether peremptory exceptions raised for the first time on appeal should be considered/heard	Poree filed five peremptory exceptions in this Court and sought a full hearing (some assert prescription/no cause of action)	(State’s position not dispositively developed on record)	Court exercised discretion under La. C.C.P. art. 2163 and remanded the exceptions to the trial court for hearing and judgment due to insufficiency of the appellate record

Key Cases Cited

Precept Credit Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Elmore, 338 So.3d 87 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2022) (appellate de novo review standard for summary judgment)
FMC Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Prytania‑St. Mary Condominiums Ass'n, Inc., 117 So.3d 217 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (definition of genuine issue of material fact against summary judgment)
Williams v. Memorial Med. Ctr., 870 So.2d 1044 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (unsworn/unverified documents are not competent evidence on summary judgment)
Succession of Barreca v. Weiser, 53 So.3d 481 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (parol evidence admissible to clarify ambiguous contract terms)
Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of Louisiana, LLC, 221 So.3d 880 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (discretion to remand peremptory exceptions raised first on appeal)