Acadian Gardens Condominium Association v. Ginger Deforest a/k/a Ginger K. Douchette

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 27, 2024
• Docket: 2024CA0314
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT VY/

2024 CA 0314

ACADIAN GARDENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION

VERSUS

GINGER DEFOREST A/K/A GINGER K. DOUCETTE

JUDGMENT RENDERED: DEC 2 7 2024

Appealed from the City Court of East St. Tammany Parish of St. Tammany - State of Louisiana Docket Number 2019- C- 0469

The Honorable Bryan D. Haggerty, Presiding Judge

Ginger K. DeForest APPELLANT Slidell, Louisiana DEFENDANT— Pro Se

Charles E. Sutton, Jr. COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE Lacombe, Louisiana PLAINTIFF— Acadian Gardens and- Condominium Association Stanley C. Kottemann, Jr. Kenner, Louisiana

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND LANIER, JJ. WELCH, I

Ginger DeForest a/ k/ a Ginger K. Doucette, appeals a judgment in favor of

Acadian Gardens Condominium Association (" the Association"), which denied and

dismissed her petition seeking to nullify a judgment from the Association' s suit on

open account and to have the privilege reflecting the associated debt canceled. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2019, the Association filed a petition for suit on open account

against Ms. DeForest, a condominium unit owner in Acadian Gardens, seeking to

recover outstanding, unpaid condominium dues and related charges in the amount

of $11, 229. 84 plus legal interest, which sum was assessed against her pursuant to

the Condominium Declarations of Acadian Gardens (" the Declarations"). The suit

was brought by the Association in the City Court of the City of Slidell, which is now

the City Court of East St. Tammany (" the City court"). See La. R. S. 13: 2487. 1.

In response to the Association' s petition, Ms. DeForest filed an answer

denying the allegations of the petition. She also asserted, as an affirmative defense,

that she purchased the condominium at a sheriffs sale, and "[ o] n belief, the

Association' s] documents[, i.e., the Declarations,] were not properly recorded, as

required by law" because the sheriff, "when announcing the various encumbrances

to which the property was subject, did not describe the [ Association] as an

encumbrance[,]" and thus, she was " not obliged to the [ Association]."

A trial on the merits was held on January 29, 2020. Thereafter, the City court

rendered and signed a judgment on February 11, 2020 in favor of the Association

and against Ms. DeForest in the principle amount as of $15, 009. 84 ( as of January

29, 2020), plus legal interest from judicial demand until paid, attorney fees in the

amount 25% ofprinciple and interest, and costs. The City court' s February 11, 2020

II judgment is now a final judgment.' In conjunction with the February 11, 2020

judgment, the City court also issued reasons for judgment. In the reasons for

judgment, the City court specifically found that Ms. DeForest purchased the property

that was the subject matter of this case in August 2017; that Ms. DeForest' s property

was encumbered by the Declarations, which provided for condominium association

dues that were to be paid by all condominium owners in the Association' s

development; that the Declarations had been properly recorded and no competent

evidence or legal authority to the contrary was presented by Ms. DeForest; and that

Ms. DeForest never paid any required condominium association fees since she has

owned the property.

On August 4, 2021, Ms. DeForest filed a petition in the 22nd Judicial District

Court for the Parish of St. Tammany (" the district court") seeking to nullify the City

court' s February 11, 2020 judgment based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

to cancel the recorded privilege and reflect cancellation of that debt (" petition for

nullity"). See La. C. C.P. art. 2002( A)( 3) ( providing that "[ a] final judgment shall

be annulled if it is rendered ... [ b] y a court which does not have jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the suit"). Essentially, Ms. DeForest contended that her affirmative

defense as to the proper recordation and enforceability of the Declarations turned the

Association' s suit on open account into a " case involving title to immovable

property," thereby divesting the City court of subject matter jurisdiction. See La.

C. C. P. art. 4847 (providing that a parish court or a city court " has no jurisdiction" in

a] case involving title to immovable property.)" In response, the Association filed a declinatory exception raising the objections of lis pendens, lack of jurisdiction, and improper venue; a dilatory

exception raising the objections of vagueness and ambiguity; and a peremptory

1 Ms. DeForest attempted to appeal the February 11, 2020 judgment; however, it was dismissed as untimely.

3 exception raising the objections of prescription, peremption, res judicata, no cause

of action, and no right of action. The Association also filed an answer, denying the

allegations of Ms. DeForest' s petition for nullity and that the City court lacked

jurisdiction over its suit on open account.

After a hearing on the exceptions, the district court rendered and signed a

judgment on June 2, 2022, dismissing, with prejudice, Ms. DeForest' s petition for

nullity based on the objection of improper venue. Ms. DeForest appealed that

judgment. On appeal, this Court affirmed the district court' s judgment insofar as it

determined that Ms. DeForest' s suit was filed in an improper venue, vacated the

district court' s judgment insofar as it dismissed Ms. DeForest' s suit with prejudice,

and remanded the matter to the district court with instructions that Ms. DeForest' s

petition for nullity be transferred to the City court. See DeForest v. Acadian

Gardens Condominium Association, 2022- 1157 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 4/ 28/ 23), 368

So. 3d 110, 113- 116.

In accordance with the remand instructions from this Court, the district court

issued an order transferring Ms. DeForest' s petition for nullity to the City court. The

City court held a hearing on Ms. DeForest' s petition on November 15, 2023. At the

conclusion of hearing, the City court rendered judgment dismissing Ms. DeForest' s petition, with prejudice. In oral reasons for judgment, the City court stated:

The judgment of this [ c] ourt rendered in open court on January 29th of 2020, and signed on February 11th of 2020, is maintained in favor of [the Association] and against [ Ms.] DeForest. The original petition filed in this matter contained a cause of action for unpaid condominium assessments and related charges. There was nothing in the petition that

pertained to nor involved the title of immoveable property and the c] ourt' s [ j]udgment had absolutely nothing to do with the title of immoveable property.

Therefore, the [ c] ourt finds that the petition of [Ms.] DeForest— based upon the submission on the record for the trial, has not carried her burden and the [ c] ourt dismisses the [ p] etition for [ n] ullity with prejudice.

r! A judgment dismissing Ms. DeForest' s petition for nullity, with prejudice,

was signed on December 31, 2023, and it is from this judgment that Ms. DeForest

appeals. On appeal, Ms. DeForest contends that the City court erred in dismissing

her petition for nullity, arguing that the City court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

to render the February 11, 2020 judgment because the Association' s suit on open

account was a case involving title to immovable property. In response, the

Association contends that the City court properly dismissed Ms. DeForest' s petition

for nullity because its suit on open account was solely a claim for monetary recovery

based upon Ms. DeForest' s failure to pay her condominium dues and related charges,

which was a claim within the jurisdiction of the City court.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2002( A)(3) provides that "[ a] final

judgment shall be annulled if it is rendered ... [ b] y a court which does not have

jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit." Subject matter jurisdiction refers to

the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine a particular class of

actions or proceedings, based upon the object of the demand, the amount in dispute,

or the value of the right asserted." La. C. C. P. art. 2. The jurisdiction of a court over

the subject matter of an action cannot be conferred by consent of the parties, and a

judgment rendered by a court that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

action or proceeding is void. La. C. C. P. art. 3.

Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction raises a question of law, which

is reviewed on appeal de novo to determine whether the lower court was legally correct. City of Baton Rouge v. Lewis, 2019- 1581 ( La. App. I" Cir. 7/ 14/ 20), 2020 WL 3967973 * 3 ( unpublished); Gandy v. Key Realty, L.L.C., 2013- 712 ( La. App. 3" Cir. 12/ 11/ 13), 128 So. 3d 678, 679. Therefore, the issue before this Court is

whether the City court' s determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the

Association' s suit on open account was legally correct.

z The subject matter jurisdiction of parish courts and city courts is limited by

the amount in dispute and by the nature of the proceeding. La. C. C. P. art. 4841( A).

Herein, the City court' s " civil jurisdiction is concurrent with the district court in

cases where the amount in dispute, or the value of the property involved, does not

exceed fifty thousand dollars." La. C. C.P. art. 4843( G). However, parish courts and

city courts, including the City court herein, have " no jurisdiction in ... [ a] case

involving title to immovable property." La. C. C. P. art. 4847( A)( 1).

On its face, La. C. C. P. art. 4847( A)( 1) divests city and parish courts of the

authority to determine ownership or title to immovable property or real estate

between parties when that issue is before the court; however, this article has been

interpreted to preclude city and parish courts from exercising jurisdiction in cases

involving a determination of the ownership of component parts of immovable

property, such as a tree. See Gandy, 128 So3d at 680- 681 and King v. Young

Properties, 2004- 680 ( La. App. 31 Cir. 10/ 27/ 04), 893 So. 2d 895, 899, writ denied,

2005- 662 ( La. 4/ 29/ 05), 901 So. 2d 1076). Courts have also interpreted this article

to preclude city and parish courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases involving

boundary disputes and other real rights in and to irremovable property. See Brown

v. Rahman, 2007- 1571 ( La. App 4" Cir. 1/ 24/ 08), 977 So. 2d 185, 186- 187 and

Geier v. Miranne, 199 So. 2d 622, 624 ( La. App. 41h Cir. 1967).

Under La. C. C. P. art. 4847( A)( 1), city and parish courts also lack subject

matter jurisdiction when an issue of ownership or title to immovable property is

raised in defense to a suit over which a city or parish court would ordinarily have jurisdiction, such as an eviction. See Bon Amis Investments, LLC v. Lapeyrouse,

2015- 1459 (La. App. 1St Cir. 5/ 5/ 16), 195 So. 3d 514, 517- 518; Scott v. Scott, 48, 716

La. App. 2nd Cir. 1/ 15/ 14), 132 So. 3d 460, 463- 464; Moody Investment

Corporation v. Occupants of 901 East 70" St., 43, 396 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 8/ 13/ 08),

990 So. 2d 119, 123; and PTS Physical Therapy Service v. Magnolia

G Rehabilitation Service, Inc., 40,558, 40, 559 ( La. App. 2" Cir. 1/ 27/ 06), 920 So.2d

997, 1000. In such cases, the party raising the objection of lack of subject matter

jurisdiction must do more than assert that ownership or title was at issue; rather, the

party must have affirmatively established with evidence that the issue of title or

ownership was brought into question thereby depriving the city or parish court of

jurisdiction. See Moody Investment Corporation, 990 So. 2d at 123; Ward -

Steinman v. Karst, 465 So. 2d 225, 226- 227 ( La. App. 3rd Cir. 1985).

Based on our de novo review of this case, we find the City court correctly

determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the Association' s suit on open

account. Therein, the Association sought a money judgment against Ms. DeForest

based on her failure to pay her condominium dues and related charges, as provided

in its Declarations, and the sum sought by the Association did not exceed the City

court' s jurisdictional limitation of fifty -thousand dollars. The Association' s suit on

open account did not involve a determination as to ownership or title to immovable

property, a component part of immovable property, or a boundary dispute or other

real right in and to immovable property. Thus, we find the Association was entitled

to avail itself ofthe jurisdiction of the City court when filing its suit on open account.

Although Ms. DeForest asserted, as an affirmative defense, that the

Association' s Declarations were not properly recorded and that she was not subject

to the Declarations, the City court concluded that Ms. DeForest failed to prove this

defense, and thus, she was subject to the Declarations. We find that Ms. DeForest' s

defense in this regard did not raise an issue involving Ms. DeForest' s title or

ownership to immovable property so as to deprive the City court of jurisdiction.

Indeed, Ms. DeForest' s title or ownership to her condominium unit was undisputed.

Rather, Ms. DeForest claimed ( but did not prove) that she should not owe the sums

due to the Association because she should not be bound by the Declarations. Therefore, we cannot say that Ms. DeForest' s affirmative defense to the

7 Association' s suit turned the case into "[ a] case involving immovable property" so

as to deprive the City court of subject matter jurisdiction under La. C. C. P. art.

4847( A)( 1).

Therefore, because we find that there was no dispute, adjudication, or issue

regarding the ownership or title to immovable property in the Association' s suit on

open account against Ms. DeForest or in Ms. DeForest' s affirmative defense to that

suit, the City court had subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the

City court properly dismissed Ms. DeForest' s petition for nullity.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above and foregoing reasons, the December 31, 2023 judgment

of the City court, dismissing, with prejudice, Ms. DeForest' s petition for nullity is affirmed.

All costs of this appeal are assessed to Ginger DeForest.

AFFIRMED.

E.3