Therefore, he asserts that he had only an inchoate interest in Lot 56 and only in rem obligation, and he could not be held liable for the City of Donaldsonville's demolition costs. Diez maintains that he never took physical possession of Lot 56, as he never sought civil possession of the lot, never brought a monition proceeding, and never filed suit to quiet title to Lot 56. Thus, he avers that he did not acquire any rights to Lot 56 at the JAscension Parish Sheriff's tax sale.įurther, Mr. Diez maintains that Lot 56 and all of its improvements were adjudicated to the City of Donaldsonville by the tax collector for the City of Donaldsonville prior to the conveyance of a tax sale certificate to him by the Sheriff of Ascension Parish. Diez maintains that the trial court erred in granting a judgment in favor of the City of Donaldsonville holding him personally responsible for an in rem obligation. Diez, awarding $10,592.50 in damages, with interest and costs, to the City of Donaldsonville, ordering that its lien and privilege on the property be recognized, that the property be sold, and that the judgment be paid from the proceeds of the sale by priority over other creditors. He asked that the City of Donaldsonville's claims against him be dismissed at its cost.Īfter a hearing, the district court ruled in favor of the City of Donaldsonville and against Mr. Diez averred that he had offered any interest he had in the property to the City of Donaldsonville in exchange for a release from any claims regarding to property, but that the City of Donaldsonville had refused his offer. Diez maintained that he had no legal obligation to pay for the cost of demolition of property to which his title was never perfected. Diez answered the petition, asserting that he was not the owner of the property, because although he had purchased the property at a tax sale he had not taken possession of the property, and because he had not taken any steps to perfect title to the property by way of a monition, suit to quiet tax title, or other means. The City of Donaldsonville asked for recognition and enforcement of the privilege on the property, that the property in due course be seized and sold in order to satisfy the claim in priority to other claims, for costs of the proceedings, and for all other legal or equitable relief. Diez had received an accounting of the amount due and had failed after 30 days to pay the amount due, and thus was also liable for reasonable attorney fees. The City of Donaldsonville maintained that Mr. Thereafter, the City of Donaldsonville filed a lien on Lot 56 for reimbursement of the cost, but averred that payment had not been made. Diez failed to comply with the orders of the Donaldson City Council to demolish the structure, the City of Donaldsonville demolished and removed the structure. The City of Donaldsonville maintained that after Mr. After the City Council meeting, the City Council determined that the structure should be demolished within 30 days and sent Mr. Diez of the dilapidated and dangerous condition of the structure on the property and had ordered him to show cause at a Donaldsonville City Council meeting why the structure should not be demolished. The City of Donaldsonville averred that it had notified Mr. Diez owed it $10,592.50 for the demolition and removal of a dilapidated and dangerous structure on Lot 56. The City of Donaldsonville filed a petition to enforce its lien on April 30, 2014, asserting that Mr. In this case, the defendant, Vince Diez, appeals a judgment against him and in favor of the City of Donaldsonville, awarding the City of Donaldsonville $10,592.50 in damages with interest and costs, and recognizing its lien and privilege on Lot 56 on Nolan Avenue, and decreeing that the property be sold and the judgment be paid from the proceeds of the sale by priority over all other creditors of Mr. McAnelly, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellant Vince Diez Long, Donaldsonville, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee City of Donaldsonville Robert V. VINCE DIEZ 2016 CA 0968 Decided: February 17, 2017īEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND CALLOWAY *, JJ.Ĭharles S. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.ĬITY OF DONALDSONVILLE v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |