Judgment rendered November 16, 2022. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 54,770-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
CHARLIE CALDWELL, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants SHREVEPORT CITY MARSHAL AND THE SHREVEPORT CITY MARSHAL’S OFFICE
versus
THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT Defendant-Appellee
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 621,853-B
Honorable Craig O. Marcotte, Judge
AYRES, SHELTON, WILLIAMS, Counsel for Appellants, BENSON & PAINE, LLC James Jefferson and The By: Curtis R. Shelton Shreveport City R. Chaz Coleman Marshal’s Office
CASTEN & PEARCE, APLC Counsel for Appellee By: Claude W. Bookter, Jr.
Before PITMAN, STONE, and THOMPSON, JJ. PITMAN, J.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Charlie Caldwell, Jr.,1 Shreveport City Marshal
and the Shreveport City Marshal’s Office (collectively, the “Marshal”)
appeal the trial court’s judgment that ordered Defendant-Appellee the City
of Shreveport (the “City”) to fund the Marshal’s expenses of operation and
maintenance from the previous ten years in the amount of $1,527,371.58.
For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part and amend the
judgment of the trial court and render judgment in favor of the Marshal in
the amount of $4,587,572.85.
FACTS
On January 22, 2020, the Marshal filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus and, in the alternative, a petition for damages. He stated that,
pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1889, the City is responsible for all reasonable and
necessary operating expenses of the Marshal. He alleged that the City has
refused to fund his office’s expenses of operation and maintenance and so
his office has been forced to pay these expenses from his discretionary
account. He requested that the trial court issue a writ of mandamus
requiring the City to pay for his office’s expenses of operation and
maintenance from 2008 until the date of filing and for the year 2020 plus
any applicable interest. In the alternative, he requested damages for the
City’s breach of its statutory duty.
On June 19, 2020, the City filed an answer. It denied the Marshal’s
allegations and requested that the trial court dismiss his demands. It stated
1 Caldwell passed away on June 16, 2022. James Jefferson, the chief deputy, succeeded Caldwell as Marshal. Following an ex parte motion to substitute filed by Jefferson, this court ordered that Jefferson be substituted for Caldwell as an appellant in this matter. that since at least 2011, it funded the Marshal’s office in the amount of
$1,500,000 per year and that the Marshal could spend the funds as he
desired.
The City also filed an exception of prescription and argued that all
claims prior to January 28, 2019, prescribed. The trial court denied the
exception regarding the prescriptive periods of one year and three years but
granted the exception regarding a 10-year prescriptive period.
A bench trial was held on December 16, 2020, and January 14, 2021.
Charlie Caldwell, Jr., the City Marshal for the City of Shreveport, testified
that since his 2008 election, his office has requested funding from the City
for operation and maintenance expenses, but the City has not paid those
expenses, even though it is mandated by statute to do so. He identified his
office’s annual operating budgets from 2011 to 2020 and noted that each
year the City allocated funds only for salaries and benefits. He discussed his
discretionary funds and stated that in years his office makes money, it keeps
the extra funds and uses them for expenses of operation and maintenance.
Caldwell also testified about the Peabody Building, which is a law
enforcement training facility that was purchased with his discretionary
funds. He noted that the City stood in his place for the purchase of the
property because he could not buy it in his name. He stated that although
the building falls under the umbrella of the City, the Marshal has full control
of it as long as it possesses the building; otherwise it reverts to the City.
Macy Bowlin, the Marshal’s accountant, testified that the Marshal
makes money through repossessions, fines and garnishment fees. She stated
that the Marshal’s operation expenses are paid from a discretionary account.
She discussed the Marshal’s budget process and that the City sets a target 2 amount that the budget should not exceed. She noted that the target amount
covers salaries and benefits, i.e., health insurance and retirement, but does
not include operation and maintenance expenses, e.g., vehicle repairs and
maintenance, office supplies and uniforms. She stated that over the previous
ten years, the City set aside no funds for the Marshal’s operation and
maintenance expenses.
In a deposition, Marsha Millican, who performed yearly audits of the
Marshal’s office, testified that $23,109 of the Marshal’s expenses since 2010
were not reasonable.
Carl Richard, a deputy marshal, testified about the expenses incurred
by the Marshal’s office that the City does not fund. He stated that it has
28 vehicles, which are used to transport prisoners to and from court, to serve
warrants and to serve civil papers and subpoenas. He stated that each
vehicle has a radio, camera, lights and sirens. He also detailed deputy
uniform expenses, including body armor and vest attachments. He stated
that the Marshal also pays for the training and conferences attended by its
deputies. Richard testified that the Marshal often splits building and security
expenses with the city court, including a new fence, new cameras in the
building and an x-ray machine. He stated that the City denies the Marshal’s
requests for funding for operation and maintenance expenses because the
Marshal has a discretionary account to use for these expenses.
Sherricka Fields Jones, the City’s chief financial officer, testified
about the City’s budget process. She stated that each department receives a
target letter setting an amount that the budget should not exceed. She
explained that all departments have a choice on how to allocate their budget
and that the City only sets the maximum budget. She noted that the 3 Marshal’s budget was used mostly for salaries and benefits and that requests
for additional expenditures exceeded the budget set in the target letter. She
testified that the city council gives the final approval on the budget and that
the council has never increased the target amount for the Marshal. She
explained that the council wants the Marshal to use its discretionary funds
for expenses above the target amount.
Shelly Ragle, the director of Shreveport Public Assembly &
Recreation (“SPAR”), testified that SPAR provides services to various
properties owned by the City, which includes the city court building where
the Marshal’s office is housed. She stated that SPAR provides maintenance,
housekeeping, minor repair services and landscaping services and provides
utilities for the city court building. She testified that SPAR does not provide
services for the Peabody Building because it was purchased by the Marshal
and the City had not budgeted to take on an additional property. She stated
that the Marshal was aware of the City’s limitations and agreed to take on
maintenance, repairs and operations for the Peabody Building.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered November 16, 2022. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 54,770-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
CHARLIE CALDWELL, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants SHREVEPORT CITY MARSHAL AND THE SHREVEPORT CITY MARSHAL’S OFFICE
versus
THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT Defendant-Appellee
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 621,853-B
Honorable Craig O. Marcotte, Judge
AYRES, SHELTON, WILLIAMS, Counsel for Appellants, BENSON & PAINE, LLC James Jefferson and The By: Curtis R. Shelton Shreveport City R. Chaz Coleman Marshal’s Office
CASTEN & PEARCE, APLC Counsel for Appellee By: Claude W. Bookter, Jr.
Before PITMAN, STONE, and THOMPSON, JJ. PITMAN, J.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Charlie Caldwell, Jr.,1 Shreveport City Marshal
and the Shreveport City Marshal’s Office (collectively, the “Marshal”)
appeal the trial court’s judgment that ordered Defendant-Appellee the City
of Shreveport (the “City”) to fund the Marshal’s expenses of operation and
maintenance from the previous ten years in the amount of $1,527,371.58.
For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part and amend the
judgment of the trial court and render judgment in favor of the Marshal in
the amount of $4,587,572.85.
FACTS
On January 22, 2020, the Marshal filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus and, in the alternative, a petition for damages. He stated that,
pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1889, the City is responsible for all reasonable and
necessary operating expenses of the Marshal. He alleged that the City has
refused to fund his office’s expenses of operation and maintenance and so
his office has been forced to pay these expenses from his discretionary
account. He requested that the trial court issue a writ of mandamus
requiring the City to pay for his office’s expenses of operation and
maintenance from 2008 until the date of filing and for the year 2020 plus
any applicable interest. In the alternative, he requested damages for the
City’s breach of its statutory duty.
On June 19, 2020, the City filed an answer. It denied the Marshal’s
allegations and requested that the trial court dismiss his demands. It stated
1 Caldwell passed away on June 16, 2022. James Jefferson, the chief deputy, succeeded Caldwell as Marshal. Following an ex parte motion to substitute filed by Jefferson, this court ordered that Jefferson be substituted for Caldwell as an appellant in this matter. that since at least 2011, it funded the Marshal’s office in the amount of
$1,500,000 per year and that the Marshal could spend the funds as he
desired.
The City also filed an exception of prescription and argued that all
claims prior to January 28, 2019, prescribed. The trial court denied the
exception regarding the prescriptive periods of one year and three years but
granted the exception regarding a 10-year prescriptive period.
A bench trial was held on December 16, 2020, and January 14, 2021.
Charlie Caldwell, Jr., the City Marshal for the City of Shreveport, testified
that since his 2008 election, his office has requested funding from the City
for operation and maintenance expenses, but the City has not paid those
expenses, even though it is mandated by statute to do so. He identified his
office’s annual operating budgets from 2011 to 2020 and noted that each
year the City allocated funds only for salaries and benefits. He discussed his
discretionary funds and stated that in years his office makes money, it keeps
the extra funds and uses them for expenses of operation and maintenance.
Caldwell also testified about the Peabody Building, which is a law
enforcement training facility that was purchased with his discretionary
funds. He noted that the City stood in his place for the purchase of the
property because he could not buy it in his name. He stated that although
the building falls under the umbrella of the City, the Marshal has full control
of it as long as it possesses the building; otherwise it reverts to the City.
Macy Bowlin, the Marshal’s accountant, testified that the Marshal
makes money through repossessions, fines and garnishment fees. She stated
that the Marshal’s operation expenses are paid from a discretionary account.
She discussed the Marshal’s budget process and that the City sets a target 2 amount that the budget should not exceed. She noted that the target amount
covers salaries and benefits, i.e., health insurance and retirement, but does
not include operation and maintenance expenses, e.g., vehicle repairs and
maintenance, office supplies and uniforms. She stated that over the previous
ten years, the City set aside no funds for the Marshal’s operation and
maintenance expenses.
In a deposition, Marsha Millican, who performed yearly audits of the
Marshal’s office, testified that $23,109 of the Marshal’s expenses since 2010
were not reasonable.
Carl Richard, a deputy marshal, testified about the expenses incurred
by the Marshal’s office that the City does not fund. He stated that it has
28 vehicles, which are used to transport prisoners to and from court, to serve
warrants and to serve civil papers and subpoenas. He stated that each
vehicle has a radio, camera, lights and sirens. He also detailed deputy
uniform expenses, including body armor and vest attachments. He stated
that the Marshal also pays for the training and conferences attended by its
deputies. Richard testified that the Marshal often splits building and security
expenses with the city court, including a new fence, new cameras in the
building and an x-ray machine. He stated that the City denies the Marshal’s
requests for funding for operation and maintenance expenses because the
Marshal has a discretionary account to use for these expenses.
Sherricka Fields Jones, the City’s chief financial officer, testified
about the City’s budget process. She stated that each department receives a
target letter setting an amount that the budget should not exceed. She
explained that all departments have a choice on how to allocate their budget
and that the City only sets the maximum budget. She noted that the 3 Marshal’s budget was used mostly for salaries and benefits and that requests
for additional expenditures exceeded the budget set in the target letter. She
testified that the city council gives the final approval on the budget and that
the council has never increased the target amount for the Marshal. She
explained that the council wants the Marshal to use its discretionary funds
for expenses above the target amount.
Shelly Ragle, the director of Shreveport Public Assembly &
Recreation (“SPAR”), testified that SPAR provides services to various
properties owned by the City, which includes the city court building where
the Marshal’s office is housed. She stated that SPAR provides maintenance,
housekeeping, minor repair services and landscaping services and provides
utilities for the city court building. She testified that SPAR does not provide
services for the Peabody Building because it was purchased by the Marshal
and the City had not budgeted to take on an additional property. She stated
that the Marshal was aware of the City’s limitations and agreed to take on
maintenance, repairs and operations for the Peabody Building.
The trial court filed an opinion on June 4, 2021. It determined that
pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1889, the City owes the Marshal expenses of
operation and maintenance. It noted that witnesses testified that all of the
Marshal’s expenses were reasonable and necessary, except for those detailed
in Millican’s deposition. It noted that the City is required only to pay for
and maintain one vehicle for the Marshal and that all other vehicles are not
mandatory expenses to be borne by the City. It stated that expenses for the
Peabody Building are not compensable because the Marshal and the City
agreed that the Marshal would be solely responsible for the Peabody
Building. It found the deduction of defrayment of expenses (“Defrayment 4 Funds”) under La. R.S. 13:1899 to be appropriate. The trial court granted
the Marshal’s writ of mandamus and ordered the City to fund the Marshal’s
operation and expenses from the previous ten years in the amount of
$1,530,405.45 and further ordered it to fund the Marshal’s operation and
expenses going forward.
The Marshal and the City both filed motions for new trial to correct
accounting errors in the trial court’s opinion. On August 5, 2021, a hearing
was held on the motions for new trial. The trial court determined that it did
err in some calculations and granted the motions for new trial.
On September 22, 2021, the trial court filed a judgment. It granted the
motions for new trial and modified the monetary amount in its previous
ruling. The trial court detailed its calculations. It stated that there was a
total of $8,854,670.92 of unfunded expenses and deducted $23,109 for
expenses determined by Millican to be unreasonable; $3,676,414.08 for the
deputies’ vehicle expenses; $567,574.99 for Peabody Building expenses and
$3,060,201.27 for Defrayment Funds received by the Marshal under La. R.S.
13:1899(C). It rendered judgment in favor of the Marshal and against the
City for the Marshal’s unfunded expenses of operation and maintenance for
the years 2010 through 2020 in the amount of $1,527,371.58, together with
judicial interest thereon from the date of judicial demand until paid in full.
The trial court ordered that the alternative writ of mandamus be made
peremptory and ordered the City to fund the aforesaid amount to the
Marshal.
The Marshal appeals.
5 DISCUSSION
In his sole assignment of error, the Marshal argues that the trial court
erred in allocating his Defrayment Funds as a payment of the City’s
obligation to fund the Marshal’s operation and maintenance expenses. He
does not find fault with the trial court’s deduction of unreasonable expenses,
deputies’ vehicle expenses and Peabody Building expenses from the total of
unfunded expenses but does find fault with the deduction of Defrayment
Funds from this total. He argues that the trial court’s ruling removed the
Defrayment Funds from his control and disregarded his authority to use
them for operation expenses and to purchase equipment. He contends that
the trial court incorrectly determined that the Defrayment Funds had to be
used to reduce the City’s funding obligations without allowing him to use
the funds for deputies’ vehicles and the Peabody Building.
The City argues that the trial court did not err and that the inclusion of
the Defrayment Funds in its calculations was proper. It argues that the trial
court correctly totaled all unfunded expenses of the Marshal and deducted
the expenses for which the City was not responsible. It states that as
Defrayment Funds are mandated to defray operational expenses, these funds
shall be used exclusively to pay whatever unfunded expenses exist for the
Marshal. The City recognizes its responsibility to pay the Marshal’s salaries
and benefits and reasonable expenses of operation and maintenance but
contends that since the Marshal obtains “substantial” revenue through its
operations, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to have the City fund
all reasonable and necessary expenses of the Marshal.
The Marshal is the executive officer of the city court. La.
R.S. 13:1881(A). He shall execute the orders and mandates of the city court 6 and in the execution thereof, and in making arrests and preserving the peace,
he has the same powers and authority of a sheriff. Id. The marshal may
appoint one or more deputy marshals. La. R.S. 13:1881(B).
The City shall set and pay the annual salaries of the chief deputy and
other deputy marshals. La. R.S. 13:2085. The City shall furnish and
maintain an automobile for the use of the Marshal in the performance of the
duties of his office. La. R.S. 13:2084. The City may also furnish and
maintain additional automobiles for the use of the Marshal if in its discretion
additional automobiles are necessary. Id.
La. R.S. 13:1889 sets forth the City’s obligation to provide for the
Marshal’s operation and maintenance expenses and states, in pertinent part:
A. The city where the court is situated shall furnish a suitable city court room and suitable offices for the judge, clerk, and marshal. It shall also furnish adequate fireproof vaults or other filing equipment for the preservation of the records of the court.
B. The expenses of operation and maintenance of the court room and offices shall be borne by the city, or may be apportioned between the city and parish as the respective governing authorities may determine.
La. R.S. 13:1899(C) sets forth the collection, control and use of
Defrayment Funds. It states, in pertinent part:
In all criminal matters, when the office of the marshal has derived one hundred thousand dollars or more in revenues for the year 2004 from costs assessed pursuant to this Subsection, the city judge shall assess, in addition to the costs assessed in Subsection A of this Section, the sum of fifteen dollars as additional costs of court. In all criminal matters, when the office of the marshal has derived less than one hundred thousand dollars in revenues for the year 2004 from costs assessed pursuant to this Subsection, the city judge shall assess, in addition to the costs assessed in Subsection A of this Section, the sum of thirty dollars as additional costs of court. The proceeds shall be deposited in a special account, separate and distinct from the account provided for in Subsection B of this Section, which account shall be in the name of and under the control of the marshal . . ., shall be subject to audit, and shall be 7 used to defray operational expenses of the office of marshal . . ., all as may be useful and necessary for the proper conduct of the marshal’s . . . office, or for purchase of law enforcement equipment, and all as may be proved by the marshal . . . .
Questions of law, such as the proper interpretation of a statute, are
reviewed by this court under the de novo standard of review. City of
Shreveport v. Shreveport Mun. Fire & Police Civ. Serv. Bd., 52,410 (La.
App. 2 Cir. 1/16/19), 264 So. 3d 643.
The trial court correctly determined that pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1889,
the City owes the Marshal expenses of operation and maintenance. The
parties agree that the trial court did not err in its determination that there was
a total of $8,854,670.92 of unfunded expenses from 2010 to 2020 or in its
deduction of the following from this total: $23,109 for expenses determined
by Millican to be unreasonable, $3,676,414.08 for the deputies’ vehicle
expenses and $567,574.99 for Peabody Building expenses. We find no error
in these calculations—the City is not required by statute to provide for
unreasonable expenses or for deputies’ vehicles, and the parties agreed that
the City was not responsible for Peabody Building expenses. We affirm this
portion of the trial court’s judgment.
A de novo review reveals that the trial court erred in deducting
$3,060,201.27 for Defrayment Funds from the total of unfunded expenses
owed by the City to the Marshal. La. R.S. 13:1899(C) clearly provides for
the Marshal’s collection and control of Defrayment Funds for “useful and
necessary” expenses and for the purchase of law enforcement equipment.
The Marshal shall retain and exercise control of these funds to pay its
expenses, e.g., deputies’ vehicles and the Peabody Building. The trial court
erred in applying the Marshal’s funds to the City’s obligation.
8 Accordingly, this assignment of error has merit. We reverse the
portion of the trial court’s judgment that deducted the Defrayment Funds.
We amend the amount owed by the City to the Marshal to $4,587,572.85,
i.e., the total of unfunded expenses minus the unreasonable expenses, the
deputies’ vehicle expenses and the Peabody Building expenses.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part and
amend the judgment of the trial court. We render, as amended, judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs-Appellants the Shreveport City Marshal and the
Shreveport City Marshal’s Office and order that Defendant-Appellee the
City of Shreveport fund the Marshal’s expenses of operation and
maintenance in the amount of $4,587,572.85 for the years 2010 through
2020. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $3,195.30 are assessed to the
City of Shreveport.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED;
AND RENDERED AS AMENDED.