Town of Sorrento v. E. Ascension Consol. Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 1

342 So.3d 89

TOWN OF SORRENTO, et al

v.EAST ASCENSION CONSOLIDATED GRAVITY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1

2021 CA 1220

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: APRIL 12, 2022

Jean-Paul Robert, Gonzales, Louisiana, Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, East Ascension Consolidated Gravity Drainage District No. 1

Robert R. Faucheux, Jr., LaPlace, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee, Town of Sorrento

Matthew I. Percy, Anna Q. Skias, Jamie S. Thistlethwaite, Gonzales, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee, Michael Lambert

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., PENZATO, AND HESTER, JJ.

PENZATO, J.

The defendant appeals the trial court's judgment denying its peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and failure to join an indispensable party and the judgment granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we recall our rule to show cause order and maintain the appeal. We affirm the judgment denying the defendant's exceptions and reverse the judgment granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Town of Sorrento and Michael Lambert, appearing as Mayor of the Town of Sorrento and as a citizen and landowner residing in the Town of Sorrento (collectively, "the Town"), filed a petition for declaratory judgment in July 2020 against the East Ascension Consolidated Gravity Drainage District No. 1. According to the petition, the Town lies within the geographical territory of the District and its citizens pay taxes specifically collected to fund drainage works within the District. The Town contended that the District has arbitrarily and unreasonably refused to clean and maintain roadside ditches and culverts located within the Town's municipal boundaries.¹ The Town prayed for judgment declaring that the District: (1) owes a continuing duty and obligation to clean and maintain roadside ditches and culverts located with its statutory boundaries, including those within the Town's municipal boundaries and (2) owes a continuing duty and obligation to treat all property and citizens/electors located within its statutory boundaries equally, including all property and citizens/electors within the Town.

The District filed an answer in October 2020, admitting the Town is within its territory.² The District denied having a duty to clean and maintain the Town's roadside ditches and culverts or a duty to treat all property and citizens within its territory equally. The District also denied that it has refused to clean and maintain the Town's roadside ditches and culverts and, instead, asserted that the Town declined to accept the terms of its "offer" to perform work in the Town. The District further asserted that it has discretionary authority to perform the work it deems necessary to accomplish its duties.

The Town filed the instant motion for summary judgment in March 2021, seeking judgment in its favor regarding the relief sought in the petition for declaratory judgment. To support the motion, the Town relied on evidence to establish that, since 1984, the District has exercised its statutory authority to levy and collect taxes within its territory, which have been paid by the Town's citizens and property owners. All voter-approved tax propositions from 1984 to 2018 provide for the collection of revenue for the purpose of maintaining and operating drainage works within the District. As the Town correctly points out, the tax propositions do not exempt and/or bar a municipality within the District, such as the Town, from receiving services funded by tax proceeds. Consequently, the Town argued, incorporated municipalities should not have limited access to funds collected through these taxes and consideration of municipal boundaries should not be a factor in any District decision or expenditure of funds.

To further highlight the District's allegedly disparate treatment, the Town produced evidence that the District offered to clear the Town's roadside ditches in June 2019 in exchange for, among other things, the Town's acknowledgment that the District has no duty to perform the work and its agreement to indemnify the District and to limit the contract's term to one year. Conversely, the District clears roadside ditches in unincorporated areas within its territory and does not require those citizens to agree to similar terms. The Town argued that its evidence established that the District's refusal to perform work within the "invisible boundaries" of the municipality was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby justifying the court's interference with the District's discretion. The Town cites Chiro v. Fourth Jefferson Drainage District , 159 La. 471, 477-78, 105 So. 556, 559 (1925), which provides, "It is well settled that, unless a public board's discretion is unreasonably or arbitrarily or fraudulently exercised, the courts will not undertake to control it, or to substitute their discretion" for that of the public body charged by law with the doing of the work. See also Lake Terrace Property Owners Association v. City of New Orleans , 567 So.2d 69, 74 (La. 1990) (In reviewing the decisions of public bodies, the courts will not interfere with the functions of these bodies in the exercise of the discretion vested in them unless such bodies abuse this power by acting capriciously or arbitrarily.)

Finally, the Town requested expedited consideration of its motion pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1878, "as this matter concerns the constitutionality of the expenditure of State funds." Pursuant to Article 1878(B), in a proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the expenditure of state funds, the court shall set the matter with preference and proceed to hear and determine the matter as expeditiously as the ends of justice may require.

The District opposed the motion for summary judgment, asserting that the trial court may not "override" its discretion concerning the drainage work it chooses to perform. It also produced evidence to demonstrate that it has appropriated money to upgrade pumping stations in the Town, for a total expenditure that "far exceeds the tax revenue collected" in the Town.

The District also filed exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action, "failure to plead supplemental relief," and failure to join an indispensable party (i.e ., the Louisiana Attorney General). The District interpreted the Town's reliance on Article 1878 as a "constitutional claim" under La. C.C.P. art. 1880 and maintained that a claim challenging the constitutionality of a statute must be set forth in the petition and served on the Attorney General. Thus, the District argued that the Town's constitutional challenge was improperly asserted for the first time in a motion for summary judgment in a proceeding wherein the Attorney General was not a party. In response to the exceptions, the Town expressly denied asserting a constitutional challenge to any statute or ordinance and explained that it relied on Article 1878 as a procedural device to obtain a hearing on the motion for summary judgment as quickly as possible.

The trial court heard argument on the District's exceptions and the Town's motion on May 4, 2021. The exceptions were denied in open court, and a judgment confirming the ruling was signed on May 13, 2021. After taking the motion under advisement, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Town, finding the Town satisfied its summary judgment burden of proving no genuine issue of material fact remains as to the duty owed by the District to the Town to clean and maintain roadside ditches and culverts within the municipality. The court concluded that the District acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in failing to perform this duty and by requiring the Town to sign an agreement before the work is performed, a requirement not based in law or jurisprudence and which sets a different standard for the Town. A written judgment granting the motion was signed on June 4, 2021.

The District filed the instant appeal, seeking reversal of the judgment denying its exceptions of no cause of action and failure to join an indispensable party, as well as the judgment granting the Town's motion for summary judgment.

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER

This court, sua sponte , issued a rule to show cause order on November 19, 2021, noting defects in the June 4, 2021 judgment. After receiving briefs on the show cause order from both parties, this court issued an interim order on January 18, 2022, remanding the matter for the limited purpose of instructing the trial court to sign an amended judgment correcting the cited deficiencies, particularly, the absence of specific declarations and/or the denial of relief sought and the lack of certainty on the face of the judgment indicating whether all claims between the parties were resolved, citing La. C.C.P. art. 2088(A)(12) and La. C.C.P. art. 1951, as amended by 2021 La. Acts, No. 259, § 2.

Pursuant to the interim order, the appeal record was supplemented with an amended judgment signed on February 2, 2022. The amended judgment expressly states that the motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of the Town and against the District and specifically provides:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the relief awarded to the [Town] is a continuing duty and obligation is owed by [the District] to clean and maintain the roadside ditches and culverts that are located within the statutory boundaries, which includes the municipal boundaries of the Town of Sorrento. This continuing duty and obligation includes treating all property and citizens/electors located within the statutory boundaries equally.

The February 2, 2022 amended judgment also states that it is a final judgment that adjudicates all outstanding issues. Considering this, we find the amended February 2, 2022 judgment cured the identified deficiencies in the original June 4, 2021 judgment. The rule to show cause order is recalled and the appeal is maintained.

EX...