In Re: Flag Boy Properties, LLC Praying for Monition .

Opinion

IN RE: FLAG BOY * NO. 2021-CA-0644 PROPERTIES, LLC PRAYING FOR MONITION * COURT OF APPEAL * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

FLAG BOY PROPERTIES, LLC NO. 2021-CA-0645

VERSUS

THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, THE UNOPENED SUCCESSION OF PATRICIA L. MAJOR AND HENRY MAJOR, SR. APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2020-01263, DIVISION “M” Honorable Paulette R. Irons, Judge ****** Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase ****** On Application for Rehearing (Court composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase)

Jonah A. Freedman Jonah Freedman Law, LLC 700 Camp Street, Suite 316 New Orleans, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

Scott J. Sonnier 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

REHEARING GRANTED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION; APPELLATE JUDGMENT OF MARCH 10, 2022 MAINTAINED MARCH 30, 2022 TGC EAL PAB Appellee, Flag Boy Properties, LLC (hereinafter “Flag Boy”), petitions this

Court for a rehearing of our March 10, 2022 decision, which reversed the trial

court’s judgment granting Flag Boy’s motion for summary judgment. Flag Boy

contends that this Court’s conclusion, that the property at issue was not blighted at

the time of the tax sale, is not supported by any existing statutory authority. We

grant rehearing solely to clarify a fundamental principle addressed in our original

opinion.

As stated in our original opinion, a property that is deemed blighted at the

time of the tax sale is subject to the eighteen-month redemptive period. La. Const.

art. VII, § 25(B)(2). The facts presented to this Court established that the property

at issue was not blighted at the time of the 2018 tax sale. Specifically, that the

September 23, 2014 judgment found the property “in compliance” as certain

violations had been abated. We further clarify our original opinion to express that

while the City of New Orleans did not issue a certificate of compliance, the

September 23, 2014 judgment serves as sufficient proof of compliance by the

1 homeowner. Therefore, as of September 23, 2014 the property was no longer

adjudicated as blighted, as it was deemed “in compliance,” and the three-year

redemptive period applies.

We further emphasize that this Court’s original analysis highlights the

fundamental constitutional right of a homeowner and the procedures implemented

to protect that right. “The sale of property for nonpayment of taxes is an action that

affects a property right protected by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.” Tietjen v. City

of Shreveport, 2009-2116, p. 5 (La. 5/11/10), 36 So.3d 192, 195 (citation omitted).

“Both the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. 1, § 2

of the Louisiana Constitution guarantee due process of law before the deprivation

of life, liberty, or property.” Surcouf v. Darling, 2015-0278, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir.

10/21/15), 177 So.3d 1085, 1091. It is the duty of this Court to uphold that

guaranteed right and our holding is consistent with the existing jurisprudence and

statutory authority. As clarified herein, the original opinion of this Court is

affirmed.

REHEARING GRANTED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION; APPELLATE JUDGMENT OF MARCH 10, 2022 MAINTAINED