Haynes v. Jackson
This text of 951 So. 2d 305 (Haynes v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
LLee Allen Haynes (Haynes) is appealing the trial court’s granting of Assessor Holice T. Jackson, Jr.’s (Jackson) Peremptory Exception of Prescription.
FACTS
Haynes is a resident and property owner in East Feliciana Parish. On May 26, 2004, Haynes filed a petition alleging overpayment of property taxes and seeking a reimbursement. On November 4, 2004, Haynes supplemented and amended his petition to include other allegations against Jackson but again asking for reimbursement for overpaid taxes.
The lawsuit filed by Haynes arose from a dispute with the ad valorem tax bill for 2003. The taxes for 2003 were due on December 31, 2003. Haynes paid his tax bill on April 19, 2004, under protest. A Notice of Tax Appeal accompanied his tax payment. Haynes subsequently filed the petition seeking the reimbursement for overpayment on May 26, 2004.
[306]*306Jackson filed a Peremptory Exception of Prescription based on Haynes’ noncompliance with La. R.S. 47:211o.1 The trial court granted the ^exception citing Louisiana Employers-Managed Ins. Co. v. Litchfield, 805 So.2d 886 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2001). This appeal followed.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal Haynes argues that the trial court erred in granting Jackson’s exception of prescription because he had properly and timely filed an action challenging the validity and/or legality of a change in a tax assessment pursuant to State ex rel. United Seamen’s Service Inc. v. City of New Orleans et al., 209 La. 797, 25 So.2d 596 (1946). In United Seamen’s Service, the issue was whether the property in question was legally exempt from taxation. Id. We find those facts distinguishable from the instant case. As the trial court stated, Haynes’ original and supplemental [307]*307and amending petitions, seek a judgment determining the amount of taxes overpaid and an order for reimbursement. Therefore, we find the trial court was correct in finding that La. R.S. 47:2110 and Litchfield, supra, are controlling.
In Litchfield, the taxpayer brought an action to recover taxes paid under protest. However, the taxes paid under protest were delinquent. La. R.S. 47:21012 requires that ad valorem taxes are due in the calendar year of the assessment. Under the facts of Litchfield the taxes were assessed in 1999 and therefore due on or before December 31, 1999. The payment under protest was not made until May 18, 2000. Even though the taxpayer filed suit for reimbursement within the 30 days required by La. R.S. 47:2110, the Litchfield court, following the holding in Capital Drilling Co. v. Graves, 496 So.2d 487 (La. App. 1st Cir.1986) and Comm-Care Corporation v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 681 So.2d 1001 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/27/96), found that La. R.S. 47:2101 must be read in pari materia with 47:2110. The 1¿result is that a taxpayer waives the right to litigate if their ad valorem taxes are not paid timely.
In sum, Haynes paid the ad valorem taxes assessed in 2003 on April 19, 2004 rather than by December 31, 2003, which made them delinquent under La. R.S. 47:2101(A)(1). Subsequently Haynes filed suit for reimbursement on May 26, 2004, well past the 30 days mandated by La. R.S. 47:2110. Thus, Haynes ability to litigate the overpayment of his taxes was prescribed.
For the reasons set forth we do not find that the trial court erred in granting the exception of prescription filed by Holice T. Jackson, Jr.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
951 So. 2d 305, 2005 La.App. 1 Cir. 2587, 2006 La. App. LEXIS 3002, 2006 WL 3804472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-jackson-lactapp-2006.