Wayne Setliff, Managing Broker of Keller Williams Realty Professionals, LLC v. Chuck Cucchiara and Dennis Good
2021CA0792
La. Ct. App.Mar 7, 2022Background
- In Oct. 2019 Cucchiara paid a $2,000 deposit to Keller Williams for a residential purchase; the sale failed due to inability to subdivide the property.
- In Feb.–Mar. 2020 Cucchiara (via Slidell Storage Mart, LLC) agreed to buy the entire parcel for $450,000, but financing/appraisal delays caused a missed closing; Cucchiara cancelled on March 26, 2020 and demanded return of the $2,000 deposit.
- Broker Wayne Setliff filed a concursus action to deposit the $2,000 and have competing claimants litigate entitlement; GMMP partners (including defendant/cross- plaintiff Dennis Good) were impleaded.
- Good filed cross-claims against Cucchiara (and the buyer’s agent) for breach of contract, misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, and sought specific performance or liquidated damages and other relief.
- Cucchiara moved to dismiss Good’s cross-claim, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for extraneous claims in a concursus and that Good lacked authority to sue on behalf of GMMP; the trial court sustained the exceptions and dismissed Good’s cross-claim without prejudice.
- On appeal the First Circuit maintained jurisdiction after reviewing the Article 1915(B) certification and affirmed dismissal, holding concursus jurisdiction is limited to disposition of the deposited funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a concursus proceeding can adjudicate Good’s tort/contract claims against Cucchiara | Good asserted tort and contract claims arising from the failed sale and sought damages/specific performance within the concursus | Cucchiara argued concursus jurisdiction is limited to disposition of deposited funds and cannot resolve unrelated merits claims | Held: Concursus is limited to disbursement of funds; Good’s claims are outside its scope and were properly dismissed |
| Whether Good had a right to assert claims on behalf of GMMP | Good sought relief on GMMP’s behalf as a partner asserting the LLP’s damages | Cucchiara argued Good lacked authority under GMMP’s partnership agreement to bind/ sue for the LLP (no right of action) | Held: Trial court correctly found Good could not proceed in concursus for those LLP claims; dismissal without prejudice appropriate (no determination on ultimate authority) |
| Whether the trial court’s Article 1915(B) certification made the partial judgment appealable | Good implied the certification should not permit piecemeal appeal | Cucchiara and Setliff noted concursus issues left no risk of piecemeal appeals because Cucchiara disavowed claim to the funds | Held: Appellate court made de novo review and concluded certification was justified here; appeal maintained |
| Whether Cucchiara’s exception was the proper procedural vehicle | Good suggested procedural defects in the exception practice in concursus | Cucchiara invoked lack of jurisdiction via a declinatory exception; court may look to substance over label | Held: Court declined to decide procedural niceties but found the jurisdictional objection (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of concursus over extraneous claims) dispositive and correctly sustained it |
Key Cases Cited
- R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 894 So.2d 113 (La. 2005) (trial must articulate reasons and whether “no just reason for delay” when certifying partial final judgment under Art. 1915(B))
- Int'l Carriers, Inc. v. Pearl River Navigation, Inc., 166 So.3d 1114 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (concursus court jurisdiction limited to disposition of funds on deposit)
- Asian Int'l, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 435 So.2d 1064 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983) (concursus protects stakeholder and does not substitute for trial on the merits)
- Jefferson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 321 So.3d 520 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2021) (stakeholder relieved of liability upon deposit in registry)
- Lestelle & Lestelle v. Campo Music Shopping Ctr. Condo. Ass'n, 315 So.3d 331 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2021) (procedural limits on exceptions and interplay of answers/cross-claims in concursus)