Gibson v. Lee

1

CHARLES A. GIBSON, SR. v. BYRON L. LEE AND HON. JON A. GEGENEHIMER, JEFFERSON PARISH CLERK OF COURT

No. 23-CA-414

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit

August 28, 2023

On Appeal from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana No. 844-822, Division "O" Honorable Danyelle M. Taylor, Judge Presiding

Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, Charles A. Gibson, Sr. Stephen M. Gele Andre M. Stolier

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Byron L. Lee William P Gibbens Gwyneth A. O'Neill

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Jude G. Gravois, Robert A. Chaisson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST, JUDGE

Appellant/plaintiff, Charles A. Gibson, Sr., seeks review of the trial court's August 21, 2023 judgment denying his petition objecting to the candidacy of appellee, Byron L. Lee, candidate for office of Jefferson Parish Council, District 3. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY and EVIDENCE

On August 8, 2023, Byron Lee filed a Notice of Candidacy ("the Notice") seeking to qualify for the office of Jefferson Parish Council, District 3.

On August 17, 2023, plaintiff filed a petition objecting to the candidacy of Mr. Lee. He asserted that section 2.03 A(1) of the Jefferson Parish Charter provides that all candidates for Parish Council shall have been legally domiciled and have actually resided, for at least the preceding year in the council district from which the candidate seeks election. Plaintiff averred that pursuant to La. R.S. 18:492 A(3), Mr Lee did not meet the qualifications for the office he seeks in the primary election. Plaintiff contended that on the Notice, Mr. Lee listed his domicile as 40 Gainswood Drive East, Marrero, LA 70072. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff asserted that Mr. Lee is domiciled and actually resides at 2125 Hyde Park, Harvey, LA 70058, which is not in District 3.

Plaintiff averred that Mr. Lee is currently married to Karen Thompson Lee. Mr. Lee filed a Petition for Divorce on December 29, 2022, which is pending in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, docket number 836-303, Division H. In his petition for divorce, Mr. Lee alleged that his last matrimonial domicile with Mrs. Lee was at 40 Gainswood Drive East, Marrero, LA 70072. He asserted that they separated on or before June 1, 2022, and have lived separate and apart continuously since that date which is more than 180 days. Plaintiff contended in his objection that Mr. Lee judicially confessed that he did not actually reside at the address at which he was qualified and the Hyde Park address is not within the boundaries of Jefferson Parish Council, District 3.

Plaintiff contended that at the time he filed his Notice, Mr. Lee did not meet the following qualifications: (1) Mr. Lee certified that his domicile was 40 Gainswood Drive East, Marrero, LA 70072, when he has not been domiciled at the same address since at least June 2022; (2) Mr. Lee has not been domiciled in District 3 for a period of one year prior to qualifying for office as required by law; (3) Mr. Lee has not actually resided in District 3 for a period of one year prior to qualifying; and (4) Mr. Lee currently lives, resides, and is domiciled at 2125 Hyde Park, Harvey, LA 70058. Accordingly, plaintiff requested that Mr. Lee be disqualified and removed from the October 14, 2023 ballot.^[1]

The matter came for an evidentiary hearing on August 21, 2023, wherein plaintiff and Mr. Lee were called to testify. Plaintiff testified that he is a qualified registered voter in Jefferson Parish, District 3, and he filed the petition objecting to Mr. Lee as a candidate for Jefferson Parish Council, District 3.

Mr. Lee testified that his residence and domicile is at the Gainswood Drive address. He testified that he has another residence at the Hyde Park address which he rents month-to-month.^[2] Mr. Lee testified that he has an upstairs suite at the Gainswood Drive address where he sleeps on multiple occasions, and has always slept in the past. He stated numerous times that he could not quantify how many times he has slept at the Gainswood Drive address versus the Hyde Park address. He asserted that he has personal belongings and clothes at both residences and provides routine maintenance at the Gainswood Drive address. He also stated that he receives his personal mail at the Gainswood Drive address and election or business mail at a P.O. Box. He does not receive mail at the Hyde Park address. He further testified that he entertains at the Gainswood Drive and Hyde Park addresses, as well as at his office.

When questioned about his petition for divorce, Mr. Lee testified that prior to filing, he stayed overnight at the Gainswood Drive address on multiple occasions for various reasons because it was his home (i.e., Karen was out of town, family events, guests were in town, or for a multitude of other reasons). When he filed the divorce petition, he had no intent to abandon the residence at Gainswood Drive as his domicile. He further testified that no further proceedings have occurred since filing. The trial court stated that service was not requested or served on Karen, and defense counsel herein for Mr. Lee stated that the action is no longer pending.

In support of his testimony that he resides and is domiciled at the Gainswood Drive address, Mr. Lee testified, and submitted evidence without objection, that he claims a homestead exemption on this property, he pays the property taxes on the Gainswood property, he receives mail at the Gainswood Drive address, he pays homeowners insurance on the Gainswood Drive property and actively engages in general maintenance of the property. Mr. Lee also submitted evidence which showed that he uses the Gainswood Drive address on his driver's license, vehicle registrations, and car insurance policies.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Mr. Lee is domiciled and actually resides at the Gainswood Drive address. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition and found that Mr. Lee met the qualifications as a candidate for Jefferson Parish Council, District 3. This appeal followed.

LAW and ANALYSIS

The Louisiana Election Code, La. R.S. 18:451, requires a candidate to meet the qualifications for the office sought at the time of qualification for the office:

A person who meets the qualifications for the office he seeks may become a candidate and be voted on in a primary or general election if he qualifies as a candidate in the election. Except as otherwise provided by law, a candidate shall possess the qualifications for the office he seeks at the time he qualifies for that office. In the event that the qualifications for an office include a residency or domicile requirement, a candidate shall meet the established length of residency or domicile as of the date of qualifying notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary....

In addition, Section 2.03 A(1) of the Jefferson Parish Home Rule Charter sets forth requirements regarding the qualifications necessary to become a member of the Council:

A Council member shall be a qualified elector of the parish and shall have been legally domiciled and have actually resided in the parish for at least one year immediately preceding the time of qualifying for office in an area which, at the time of qualification, is within the district.

Thus, in order to be eligible to run for councilman, Mr. Lee must have been a qualified elector of the parish, and legally domiciled in and actually resided in the district in which he intends to run. On appeal, plaintiff challenges the trial court's conclusion that Mr. Lee actually resided in District 3 for at least one year prior to qualifying for this office as required by law.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has long held that the purpose of the election process is to provide the electorate with a wide choice of candidates. Becker v. Dean, 03-2493 (La. 9/18/03), 854 So.2d 864, 869; Williams v. Ragland, 567 So.2d 63 (La. 1990). Because encouraging qualification is an integral component of the process, laws regulating the process must be interpreted with this purpose in mind. Becker, 854 So.2d at 869. Therefore, the interests of the state and its citizens are best served when election laws are interpreted so as to give the electorate the widest possible choice of candidates. Rich v. Martin, 259 So.2d 113, 116 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1971).

To further this policy, a person challenging candidacy has the burden of proving that the candidate is disqualified. Lumar v. Lawson, 20-251 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/10/20), 301 So.3d 1243, 1249, writ denied, 20-994 (La. 8/13/20), 300 So.3d 868.

In addition, the laws governing the conduct of elections must be liberally interpreted so as to promote rather than defeat candidacy. Dixon v. Hughes, 587 So.2d 679, 680 (La. 1991). Any doubt as to the qualifications of a candidate should be resolved in favor of permitting the candidate to run for public office. Id.

Appellate courts review findings of fact under the manifest error or clearly wrong standard. North v. Doucet, 18-437 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/1/18), 253 So.3d 815, 818. Issues of law are reviewed simply for legal correctness. Id.

An individual's domicile is defined as his or her habitual residence. La. C.C. art. 38. In the absence of an habitual residence, any place of residence may be considered one's domicile at the option of persons whose interests are affected. La. C.C. art. 39. While it is possible to have several residences, an individual only has one domicile. La. C.C. art. 39; Becker, 854 So.2d at 871.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has applied the interpretation of the term "actually domiciled" to the phrase "actually resided" in La. R.S. 33:384, and determined...