|/The plaintiff-appellant, Louisiana Board of Ethics (the Board), appeals the trial court’s judgment denying the Board’s objection to candidacy and request for disqualification of the defendant, Ralph Wilson, who seeks re-election to the Natchitoches Parish School Board in the upcoming November election. Finding no manifest error on the part of the trial court, we affirm the judgment granting the Board’s requеst for penalties and denying the Board’s request for disqualification of this candidate.
I.
ISSUES
We must decide whether the trial court manifestly erred in ordering the defendant
II.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Wilson has been an elected member of the Natchitoches Parish School Boаrd since 1987. In 2012, he failed to timely file his prior year’s Tier 3 Annual Personal Financial Disclosure Statement pursuant to La.R.S. 42:1124 of the Code of Governmental Ethics. Mr. Wilson received the Board’s delinquency notice requiring that the disclosure statement be filed by July 12, 2012. He ultimately complied by filing the statement in November of 2013.
The following month, in December 2013, the Board issued an Order assessing the maximum statutory penalty of $1,500.00 against Mr. Wilson for the late filing оf the report. The Order and a letter explaining the process for |2submitting the late fee payment, or disputing the assessment, were delivered to Mr. Wilson by certified mail on December 27, 2013. The letter explainеd that Mr. Wilson had twenty days to pay, request a waiver, or request an appeal of the assessment through the Board, which indicates a deadline of January 16, 2014, to handle the matter. The Board’s letter concluded by informing Mr. Wilson that if he did not pay or dispute the assessment of the fee, a lawsuit would be filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court “to pursue the collection of the late fees.”
The record reflects no furthеr action by the Board during the seven months following the January compliance deadline. On August 21, 2014, Mr. Wilson signed a notice of candidacy seeking to run for another term on the School Board in the November election. The qualifying period ended on August 22, and on August 29, the Board timely filed an objection to the candidacy of Mr. Wilson based upon his allegedly false certification in the notice of candidacy that he did not owe any outstanding fees, fines, or penalties pursuant to the Code of Governmental Ethics. The Board sought not only to enforce its Order for payment of the late fee, it also sought disqualification of Mr. Wilson for re-election.
The Board’s objection was heard in the district court on September 2, 2014. Under direct examination by his attorney, Mr. Wilson testified on his own behalf regarding his attempts to comply with the Board’s Order in January before qualifying for candidacy in August, and his prior belief that the transaction had been completed by an associate who had been dispatched by him for that purpose. The Board did not contеst Mr. Wilson’s testimony or cross-examine him at trial. Mr. Wilson did not contest the amount of the penalty, or the fact that it was still owed at the time of trial.
|3On the same day in open court, the trial judge orally enforced thе Board’s Order against Mr. Wilson for payment of the $1,500.00 late fee, but she denied the Board’s objection to Mr. Wilson’s candidacy, giving oral reasons for her findings. The trial judge then signed a written judgment decreeing that Mr. Wilson was not disquаlified from running for the School Board seat in November and that he was to pay the full amount of the penalty “today.” For the reasons below we affirm the judgment, giving the matter our expedited consideration рursuant to La.R.S. 18:1409(A)(1).
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court may not set aside a trial court’s findings of fact in absence of
Even where the appellate court believes its inferences are more reasonable than the fact finders, reasonable determinations and inferences of fact should not be disturbed on appeal. Arceneaux v. Domingue,
IV.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The Board contends that the trial court erred in nоt granting its objection to candidacy and in not disqualifying Mr. Wilson for the November election. The record reveals however, that the trial court’s findings are reasonable, and under the manifest error standard, we must аffirm.
The Board’s objection to candidacy is based on La.R.S. 18:492(A)(6)
Mr. Wilson testified at trial that he had contacted the Board more than once, had provided all information, had made arrangements to resolve the late fee issue in January, and thought the transaction had been completed at that time. He provided specific details regarding these attempts. Mr. Wilson further testified that he had signed qualification forms for every term since 1986, and that he was not aware of new language added after his previous qualification, though he admitted that he did not read every line of the form handed to him by the clerk as he should have. The Board admitted that Mr. Wilson had been very cooperative and further admitted that the form was revised around 2012. The form itself shows a revision date of 12/2012. The Board did not introduce pri- or forms or testimony to contest Mr. Wil
The trial court denied the Board’s objection to Mr. Wilson’s candidacy in open court and immediately issued a judgment allowing him to pay the penalty. She found that Mr. Wilson’s testimony was uncontested, unrebutted, and that the penalty itself was not at issue because Mr. Wilson was willing to pay it. She correctly cited the law’s charge on the courts to liberally construe the statutes . so as tо permit rather than defeat candidacy.
It is well-settled that the laws governing the conduct of elections must be liberally interpreted so as to promote rather than defeat candidacy. Russell v. Goldsby, 00-2595 (La.9/22/00),
The strongest case cited by the Board is State, Bd. of Ethics v. Darby,
In Darby, the candidate ran for the State Senate in 2003. In 2004, the Board assessed $1,200.00 in late fees for Darby’s failure to file four camрaign finance disclosure reports. In 2005, the Board’s Order was converted into a Judgment by the 19th JDC. When Darby ran for Sheriff in 2006, the judgment had not been paid, and the Board filed a petition objecting to Darby’s candidacy. The triаl court orally ruled that the Board had established a prima facie case for disqualification, but then ordered Darby to tender the late fees to avoid disqualification. When Darby paid as instructed, the trial court issued a judgment[7denying the Board’s objection to Darby’s candidacy. We reversed, finding that Darby did not successfully rebut the Board’s evidence where he simply denied knowledge of a judgment against him. We found that the Bоard’s objection should have been sustained and that disqualification was mandatory, pursuant to the language in La.R.S. 18:494 requiring that once the objection is sustained, “the final judgment shall disqualify the defendant as a candidate.”
Conversely here, we find that, while we may have decided the case differently, the trial court was present and in a better position to judge Mr. Wilson’s testimony, and she had a reasonable basis for finding that he suсcessfully rebutted the Board’s allegations of a false certification. Mr. Wilson’s testimony regarding his belief that the penalty issue had been resolved was uncontested by the Board who failed to cross-examine him regarding that belief. In further distinguishing Darby which ap
V.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the trial court judgment in all respects. We assess costs in the amount of $1,059.45 to the plаintiff, the Louisiana Board of Ethics, pursuant to La.R.S. 18:5112.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. § 492. Grounds for an objection to candidacy
A. An action objecting to the candidacy of a person who qualified as a candidate in a primary election shall be based on one or more of the following grounds:
[[Image here]]
(6) The defendant falsely certified on his notice of candidacy that he does not owe any outstanding fines, fees, or penalties pursuant to the Code of Governmental Ethics as provided in R.S. 18:463(A)(2).