MRB MORTGAGE, INC. VERSUS SHERIFF WAYNE L. JONES, TAX COLLECTOR, ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, JANET J. SAM AND FEMON J. SAM NO. 13-CA-61 FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 60,336, DIVISION "A" HONORABLE MADELINE JASMTI'ffi, JUDGE PRESIDING CQUR'!, F.J. :'\ _ JD p C' l\ L >.,. 1_~.J -', JULY 30,2013 FIFTH lt~c1jtt HANS J. LILJEBERG JUDGE Panel composed of Judges Robert A. Chaisson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Hans J. Liljeberg FILED JUL 3 0 2013 Cheryl Ou irk L~1J"IcJriou CLERt< ROBERT R. FAUCHEUX, JR. Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1960 Laplace, Louisiana 70069 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS APPEAL DISMISSED
This lawsuit commenced on August 30,2010, when plaintiff, MRB Mortgage, Inc. ("MRB"), filed a "Petition for Damages, and Rule to Show Cause why the Sheriff Tax Sale held on May 28, 2003 should not be declared an Absolute Nullity," against Sheriff Wayne Jones of St. John the Baptist Parish, in his capacity as Sheriff and Tax Collector, and Janet and Femon Sam ("the Sams"). In its petition, MRB alleged that it had a mortgage interest in the property located at 652 West 2 nd Street, Laplace, Louisiana, and that the property was sold at a tax sale on May 28,2003, without proper notification to MRB. NIRB sought a judgment declaring the tax sale to be an absolute nullity, as well as damages and attorney fees. It also requested that any subsequent judgment predicated on the tax sale be declared an absolute nullity as well. Throughout this litigation, the Sams have contended that they purchased both the tract of land and the commercial improvements located at 652 West 2 nd Street in Laplace, Louisiana, at the tax sale on May 28, 2003. Eldridge Bartholomew, Sf. was the owner of this tract ofland prior to the tax sale. The Sams have also maintained that Sheriff Jones conducted the tax sale according to the applicable law and that the tax sale validly conveyed ownership of the tract of land and the commercial improvements to the Sams. -2
On September 30, 2010, the trial court conducted a hearing in this matter, but no testimony was taken and no evidence was admitted at the hearing. Thereafter, on November 30, 2010, the trial court rendered a judgment granting MRB's petition to annul the tax sale of May 28,2003. Motions for new trial were filed by the Sams, St. John the Baptist Parish, and Sheriff Jones as tax collector, and they came for hearing before the trial court on January 21, 2011. Again, no testimony was taken and no evidence was admitted at this hearing. On March 25,2011, the trial court rendered a judgment denying the motions for new trial filed by defendants, stating that the court was reaffirming its finding that the tax sale on May 28, 2003, was an absolute nullity. The Sams and Sheriff Jones as tax collector filed appeals with this Court to challenge the trial court's judgments, which ruled that the tax sale on May 28, 2003, was an absolute nullity. In its opinion, this Court vacated the trial court's judgments finding the tax sale to be an absolute nullity, because no trial was held, no testimony was taken, and no evidence was admitted at the hearings in this matter. MRB Mortgage, Inc. v. Jones, 11-845 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/13/12), 90 So. 3d 1104, 1107. This Court found that the rendering of a final judgment without conducting a trial at which all parties were allowed to submit evidence was error, and this Court remanded the case back to the trial court. Id. On remand, trial of this matter was held on August 1,2012, at which testimony was taken and evidence was introduced and admitted. Thereafter, on September 24,2012, the trial court rendered a judgment denying MRB's petition to declare the May 28,2003, tax sale an absolute nullity, and the court provided written reasons for its judgment. The Sams have filed the instant appeal. -3
LAW AND DISCUSSION In their "Motion for Suspensive Appeal," the Sams state that they agree with the trial court's denial ofmrb's petition to declare the tax sale an absolute nullity. However, they assert that they disagree with "certain findings" made by the trial court in its reasons for judgment and seek reversal of those findings. In their brief on appeal, the Sams indeed set forth two of the trial court's findings that they claim to be error. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2082 defines an "appeal" as "the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court." (Emphasis added). The jurisprudence has consistently provided that appeals are taken from a judgment, not the written reasons for judgment. See Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission v. Olivier, 02-2795, p.3 (La. 11/18/03),860 So. 2d 22,24; Parish ofst. Charles v. Young, 99-411, p. 3 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/15/99),750 So. 2d 276,278; Wilson v. Wilson, 30,445, p. 13 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/9/98), 714 So. 2d 35, 42. See also LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083. Courts of appeal are constrained to review judgments on appeal. Dawson v. Terrebonne General Medical Center, 10-2130, p. 13 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/19/11),69 So. 3d 622, 630. The Sams have clearly indicated that they do not challenge the ruling in the trial court's September 24, 2012, judgment, denying MRB's petition to declare the tax sale an absolute nullity. Rather, they disagree with particular factual findings that are contained in the trial court's "discussion" or reasons for judgment. Specifically, the Sams contend that the trial court erred in finding that NIRB had a valid mortgage on the property and that the trial court erred in finding that the Sams only purchased the commercial improvements and not the tract of land or -4
real property at the tax sale.' However, because an appeal lies from a judgment, not written reasons for judgment, we cannot consider the arguments set forth by the Sams on appeal. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal. DECREE For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal filed by Janet and Femon Sam. APPEAL DISMISSED 1 We note that neither the Sams nor any other party has filed a pleading seeking a declaration as to the scope or extent of the tax sale. -5
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHIEF JUDGE CHERYL Q. LANDRIEU CLERK OF COURT FREDERICKA H. WICKER JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON ROBERT M. MURPHY STEPHEN J. WINDHORST HANS J. LIUEBERG FIFTH CIRCUIT MARY E. LEGNON CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK SUSAN BUCHHOLZ FIRST DEPUTY CLERK JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) TROY A. BROUSSARD POST OFFICE BOX 489 DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400 www.fifthcircuit.org (504) 376-1498 FAX NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COpy OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELNERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH Uniform Rules - Court of Appeal, Rule 2-20 THIS DAY JULY 30. 2013 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW: 13-CA-61 E-NOTIFIED NO ATTORNEYS WERE ENOTIFIED MAILED PEGGY M. ROBINSON JULES A. CARVILLE, III ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW 2850 77TH AVENUE 900 MAIN STREET BATON ROUGE, LA 70807 LAPLACE, LA 70068 ROBERTR. FAUCHEUX, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW POST OFFICE DRAWER 1960 LAPLACE, LA 70069