Ipf22, LLC v. Joyce Frazier

Opinion

IPF22, LLC * NO. 2024-CA-0772

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

JOYCE FRAZIER * FOURTH CIRCUIT

* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*

* *******

JCL LOBRANO, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS

I respectfully concur in the results. I agree with the majority that, under our

controlling precedent in Sholes v. IPF22, LLC, 24-0552 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/3/25), --

- So.3d ----, 2025 WL 999957, a reconventional demand seeking to annul a tax sale

based on a redemption nullity is governed by La. R.S. 47:2287, not the ten-day

answer period of La. R.S. 47:2266(B). The timeline provided by La. C.C.P. art.

1041, ninety days from service, is the appropriate procedural measure.

I write separately to stress that the ongoing invocation of La. R.S.

47:2266(B) as a peremptive bar, rather than an answer deadline, continues to cause

confusion at the trial level. When property rights are at stake, statutory precision

and procedural clarity are critical. The Legislature may wish to revisit these

provisions to explicitly distinguish answer deadlines from peremptive limits,

especially where constitutional notice rights are involved.