New Orleans Redevelopment Authority v. Ovide

871 So. 2d 396, 2003 La.App. 4 Cir. 0476, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 795, 2004 WL 727456
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 19, 2004
DocketNo. 2003-CA-0476
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 871 So. 2d 396 (New Orleans Redevelopment Authority v. Ovide) 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.

Bluebook
New Orleans Redevelopment Authority v. Ovide, 871 So. 2d 396, 2003 La.App. 4 Cir. 0476, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 795, 2004 WL 727456 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

hMICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge.

The City of New Orleans appeals the portion of the November 20, 2002 trial court judgment ordering it to “cancel and erase from its rolls all taxes, health liens, housing liens, grass liens or liens of whatever nature or kind” as they relate to property located at 3701-03 Loyola Avenue.

This case involved an expropriation suit filed by the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (“NORA”) against Renetta Ovide, divorced wife by first marriage of James Oliver Davis and wife by second marriage of/and James McDuffie, or their successions and heirs, if deceased; Cora D. Carter and N.P.H. Company, L.L.C. (“NPH”). The City of New Orleans was not a party to this expropriation proceeding, but monitored the proceedings after being served with a “Notice to Creditor” document.

NORA is an agency authorized by the Louisiana Legislature to acquire blighted properties in the City of New Orleans, through purchase, expropriation or otherwise, and to subsequently dispose of such property. NORA began its existence as the “Community Improvement Agency in and for the City of New | ^Orleans” (“CIA”) by virtue of Acts 1968, No. 170 (copy of the act attached as Appendix A). CIA’s name was changed by Acts 1994, 3rd Ex.Sess., No. 135 (copy of the act attached as Appendix B), effective July 7, 1994, to New Orleans Redevelopment Authority.1 Acts 1972, No. 299 (copy of the act attached as Appendix C), Acts 1980, Nos. 571 and 572 (copies of the acts attached as Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively), Acts 1984, No. 155 (copy of the act attached as Appendix F), Acts 1995, No. 375 (copy of the act attached as Appendix G), and Acts 1997, No. 101 (copy of the act attached as Appendix H) amended Acts 1968, No. 170.2

NORA filed its petition for expropriation on June 27, 2002 against the above-named defendants after the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of New Orleans determined that the property located at 3701-03 Loyola Avenue was blighted, and authorized NORA to acquire the same. According to the petition, Renetta and James McDuffie and NPH are the last two links in the recorded chain of title for the subject property, and Ms. Carter subsequently purchased the property at a tax sale, by an act not yet recorded.

In NORA’s petition, it requested that a judgment of expropriation be rendered [398]*398and that the title to the property pass to NORA free and clear of all encumbrances, reserving to the creditors, if any, satisfaction of their claims, to the extent possible, from the amount fixed in the judgment and deposited in the trial 13court’s registry, according to their priority as established by law. Additionally, NORA requested that all liens of whatever nature or kind heretofore assessed and recorded against the property by the City of New Orleans’ Departments of Finance, Health, Housing and Parkway and Park Commission be cancelled and erased within thirty days of rendition of judgment of expropriation. The petition also requested that any such liens that were not recorded when the petition was filed be declared null, void, unenforceable and otherwise without effect, and that no such lien be subsequently assessed, levied or recorded against the property until NORA has disposed of the property and 270 days have elapsed thereafter.

On August 8, 2002, NORA filed in the trial court a “Notice to Creditor of Expropriation,” and asked the court to serve the City of New Orleans with a copy of that notice. This notice was served on the New Orleans’ City Attorney’s Office on August 12, 2002. In that notice, NORA stated that mortgage records indicated that those being served with this notice could have an inferior mortgage, lien, privilege or other encumbrance bearing against the property to be expropriated.

At the trial in this matter, it was revealed that the structure on the property at issue was demolished prior to the date that the expropriation petition was filed, and that this fact was previously unknown to NORA. The trial court rendered judgment on November 20, 2002 dismissing the expropriation petition, but ordering defendants NPH and Ms. Carter to reimburse NORA for costs incurred in the amount of $2,000.00. The trial court also ordered the City of New Orleans to cancel and erase from its rolls, all taxes, health liens, housing liens, grass liens or 14liens of whatever nature or kind so that the property at issue could be transferred free and clear of said encumbrances. The City filed a motion for new trial from that judgment, which was denied. The City now appeals.

On appeal, the City raises six assignments of error. In one of those assignments, the City argues that the trial court erred in rendering judgment against it because the City was not named as a party to the expropriation proceeding or served with citation. The City argues that the judgment against it is null and void under La. C.C.P. article 1201.

La. C.C.P. article 1201 states, in pertinent part:

A. Citation and service thereof are essential in all civil actions except summary and executory proceedings and divorce actions under Civil Code Article 102. Without them all proceedings are absolutely null.
B. The defendant may expressly waive citation and service thereof by any written waiver made part of the record.

Although the City was served with a “Notice to Creditor of Expropriation,” it was never made a party to the expropriation suit and was never served with citation. Due process requires that a judgment cannot be rendered against a party until that party has been joined in the suit and has been served with process. Ceco Corporation v. R & M Industries, Inc., 425 So.2d 709 (La.1982). Therefore, the portion of the judgment rendered against the City is invalid. See also, Krueger v. Tabor, 546 So.2d 1317 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989); Gardner v. Normal Life, Inc., 542 So.2d 823 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989); Champagne v. Lee, 470 So.2d 378 (La.App. 5 Cir.1985).

[399]*399|sWe note that in the case of U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Hurley, 96-1421 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/6/97), 698 So.2d 482, this Court affirmed a judgment against an insurance company that was not named as a party to the lawsuit or served with citation. In the Hurley case, counsel for the insurance company that was not named as a defendant appeared at trial on behalf of the insurer, stipulated as to insurance coverage and after rendition of judgment against it, filed a motion for new trial that made no jurisdictional challenge. The insurer first raised the issue of lack of citation and service of process in its appellate brief filed along with an exception of no right of action. This Court found that considering the totality of the circumstances, the insurance company’s actions constituted a general appearance to defend the suit at trial and a waiver of objection to lack of citation and service. Id. at p. 14, 698 So.2d at 489.

The instant case is distinguishable from the Hurley case. In the instant case, counsel for the City was present at trial and stated that it was appearing on behalf of the City in its capacity as a creditor. Counsel stated at trial that the City is owed taxes in the amount of $2,878.90, but that statement was in response to a question posed by the trial court. After judgment was rendered against it, the City filed a motion for new trial arguing that the trial court committed error in rendering a judgment against a nonparty to the action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Trott v. Brinks, Inc.
972 So. 2d 81 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
871 So. 2d 396, 2003 La.App. 4 Cir. 0476, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 795, 2004 WL 727456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-orleans-redevelopment-authority-v-ovide-lactapp-2004.