422 So.3d 366
La. Ct. App.2025Background
- Buckles and Sanford executed a promissory note for $229,500 secured by a mortgage on Hedgewood Drive, Baton Rouge.
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society filed an ordinary-venue petition to enforce the security interest in 2023 after alleged default.
- Service attempts at Hedgewood Drive failed; Buckles was later served domiciliary at W. Johnson Street via a relative on Sept. 28, 2023.
- Buckles did not respond; Wilmington sought and obtained a default judgment on April 8, 2024, with notice of signing served April 22, 2024.
- Sheriff later seized the Hedgewood Drive property and scheduled a sheriff sale for Aug. 21, 2024.
- Buckles filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a Rule to Show Cause to declare the foreclosure void, both denied August 19, 2024, with an amended judgment in June 2025 affirming denial of the injunction and denial of the annulment request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buckles was properly served to support annulment | Buckles did not overcome presumption of service; proper domiciliary service at W. Johnson Street. | Buckles was not at the W. Johnson Street address when served; service invalid. | Service presumed proper; no manifest error; annulment denied. |
| Timeliness of Buckles' appeal of the default judgment | Appeal timely from April 22, 2024 service of notice of signing. | No timely motion for new trial; appeal of April 8, 2024 default judgment untimely. | Appeal of the default judgment untimely; merits not reached. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunction | No manifest error in finding service valid; injunction inappropriate. | Irreparable harm and improper service warranted injunction. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the amended judgment complies with Article 1918 and disposes of Buckles' claims | Amended judgment confirms denial of injunction and annulment, and foreclosure may proceed. | Judgment lacked proper decretal language disposing of claims; supervisory review warranted. | Appellate supervisory review affirmed denial of relief; foreclosure allowed to proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Centurion Capital Corp. v. Littlefield, 314 So.3d 45 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2020) (burden to rebut presumption of service; prima facie proof governs)
- Brown v. Stratis Construction, LLC, 341 So.3d 640 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2022) (absolute nullity when no proper service; can be challenged collaterally)
- Langlois, 874 So.2d 216 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004) (domiciliary service depends on actual facts; domicile is a factual question)
- Singleton v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 353 So.3d 164 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2022) (interlocutory judgments reviewable on appeal where expressly provided by law)
- Jones v. Fogg, 413 So.3d 580 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2025) (supervisory jurisdiction may review interlocutory orders)
- Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Slaughter, 917 So.2d 532 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005) (reiterates supervisory power for appellate courts)