Carolyn Guntz Wilderson v. Maya Lucille Guntz Flowers ( 2024 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2023 CA 1200
CAROLYN GUNTZ WILDERSON
VERSUS
14A -
MAYA LUCILLE GUNTZ FLOWERS
JUL 16 2024
Judgment Rendered:
Appealed from the
19th Judicial District Court
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana
No. C617503
The Honorable Donald R. Johnson, Judge Presiding
Maya Guntz Flowers Defendant/Appellant,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana In Proper Person
Stephen C. Myers Counsel for Intervenor/Appellee,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana George Bayhi, through
Dominus LLC
BEFORE: WELCH, WOLFE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.
WOLFE, J.
This is an appeal of a judgment declaring a Sheriff' s sale of property to be
valid and the purchaser to be its owner, directing the distribution of the sale proceeds,
and denying claims by the previous owner. We vacate and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2003, the heirs of William McKinley Guntz and Carrie Mary Smith Guntz
acquired ownership of succession property located at 2195 Christian Street, in Baton
Rouge. By 2012, Maya Guntz Flowers ( who inherited the interest of one of the
original heirs) had acquired an undivided 5/ 6 interest in the property and Carolyn
Guntz Wilderson ( an original heir) remained owner of an undivided 1/ 6 interest.
Wilderson instituted this suit, seeking a judicial partition of the property and
reimbursement for expenses related to her ownership interest.
As Wilderson requested, the trial court ordered that the property be sold at
public auction.
On July 6, 2017, the trial court signed a judgment ordering that
Wilderson be reimbursed $ 2, 552. 98, for her costs, expenses, and reimbursement
claims to date. Flowers purchased the property at the public sale conducted on
November 15, 2017. After further disputes over division of the sale proceeds, the
trial court signed a stipulated judgment on October 20, 2018, wherein the parties
agreed, among other things, that Flowers would pay Wilderson $ 2, 052. 98, which
represented Wilderson' s reimbursement claim less $ 500. 00 that Wilderson owed to
Flowers.
When Wilderson was not promptly paid, she began taking steps to recoup the
amount owed her. Pertinently, she filed multiple requests for issuance of writs of
fieri facial (" fifa") for the sale of Flowers' property, including the Christian Street
property, to satisfy the judgment. Wilderson' s requests for issuance of writs of fifa
were granted, and the Sheriff again seized the property for salethis time to satisfy
the judgment. In the meantime, Wilderson filed a series of related pleadings in
2
which she requested payout from the proceeds of the Sheriff' s sale, attesting that she
was owed the principal amount of $2, 052.98, as well as accruing interest and costs.
By 2021, Wilderson claimed that the balance she was owed totaled $ 21, 452. 05. In
those pleadings, she also requested " additional damages" to be determined by the
trial court to defray the costs she incurred as a result of Flowers' failure to timely
pay the judgment and property taxes.
On July 12, 2021, Flowers filed a petition for injunctive relief, in which she
stated that the property was set to be sold at Sheriff s sale on July 14, 2021. Flowers
sought to enjoin the sale, asserting that the money judgment Wilderson was
attempting to execute did not exist. Flowers further sought to enjoin Wilderson from
enforcing or executing a money judgment against her until such time as a valid
judgment was entered or a hearing could take place.
With the petition, Wilderson submitted a proposed order, which contained two
rulings in separate paragraphs. The first granted a temporary restraining order that
restrained and enjoined the property sale and granted the requested injunctive relief.
The second included spaces for the court to fill in a date and time for a contradictory
hearing on the request for preliminary injunction. The trial court signed the order
on July 13, 2021, on the signature line provided, and in the space between the text
for setting the hearing and the text for the court to indicate the date and location in
which the order was signed, the trial court added " Denied. Defendant' s request does
not meet the irreparable injury law and Defendant has not provided security." The
spaces for the trial court to fill in the date ofthe requested contradictory hearing were
left blank.
The property was not sold in 2021 and was set for sale again in 2022. Days
before a March 23, 2022 scheduled sale, Flowers filed a motion to nullify several
judgments, as well as the writs of fifa, on the grounds of fraud and ill practices and
failure to comply with court rules. Alternatively, she sought an injunction against
3
the sale of the property " until such time as a new trial." The motion was set for
contradictory hearing on April 25, 2022; however, it is unclear what, if any hearing,
transpired that date.
The property was not sold at the Sheriffs sale held in March and was
scheduled for sale again on May 18, 2022. The trial court also set a status conference
in this matter for May 31, 2022. George Bayhi filed a motion to intervene in the suit
for purposes of the status conference, alleging that he purchased the property at the
Sheriff' s sale conducted May 18, 2022, and therefore had an interest in the suit. The
trial court granted Bayhi' s motion.
Flowers and Bayhi participated in the May 31, 2022 status conference. The
notary public who had been appointed in 2015 to make recommendations to the court
about claims relative to the original Sheriff's sale of the property and who was still
owed amounts relative to that appointment also participated, stating that she learned
of the status conference through Bayhi' s counsel. Wilderson did not participate,
although it is unclear if she had notice thereof.
At the status conference, the trial court invited the parties to present their
perspectives on " where we are." Flowers explained that she filed the motion to
nullify the writs of fifa, which she characterized as attempts by Wilderson to expand
her right of recovery under the original judgment. Flowers represented that the trial
court had issued a stay pending a ruling on the matter, but notice of the stay was not
given to the Sheriff, and the property was set for sale. The notary explained that
Wilderson' s recent attempts to collect in excess of $20,000. 00 were " odd" and " not
in line at all with the judgment that the court had rendered." The notary stated that
she was there only to protect her claim for the original fees owed her. Bayhi' s
attorneys explained that Bayhi purchased the property at Sheriff's sale on May 18,
2022, and that the other parties' disagreement over the proceeds was separate from
his ownership claim.
rd
At the conclusion of the status conference, the trial court ordered that the
parties file pleadings asserting any causes of action, claims, or rights in the matter
by June 9, 2022. The trial court explained that this was because, procedurally, it
needed " to get everybody ... on record with respect to what claim [ they were]
making." The trial court confirmed that it would issue a ruling on June 24, 2022,
based on those pleadings. When Flowers pointed out that Wilderson was not
present, the trial court indicated it would issue an order to show cause by June 24,
2022, which would be served at Wilderson' s last known address, to provide
Wilderson with notice that relief would be granted or denied on June 24, 2022. The
trial court signed a " Status Conference Order" on June 10, 2022, which
memorialized the ruling, including the June 9, 2022 deadline for the filing of
pleadings to be considered and ruled upon on June 24, 2022.
In accordance with the trial court' s order, Flowers filed a memorandum
challenging Wilderson' s right to obtain a writ of Fifa, arguing that the writs of fifa
should be annulled, and contesting the propriety of the Sheriff' s sale that took place
before the court ruled on her claims. Bayhi filed a Petition for Declaratory
Judgment, seeking a declaration that he was the lawful purchaser and rightful owner
of the property, as well as his costs and attorney' s fees for having to defend his title.
Bayhi also filed a memorandum, in which he argued that even if Flowers was correct
that Wilderson was not entitled to expand the amount she was owed beyond that of
the original judgment, the Sheriff' s sale was still valid based on the initial writ of
fifa. He pointed out that no injunction or legal impediment prevented the sale, and
that Flowers' arguments were relevant only to distribution of the sale proceeds.
On June 24, 2022, the trial court signed a judgment, which stated that the
matter came before the court May 31, 2022[,] on a [ s] tatus [ c] onference and on
consideration of [the] [ p] etition for [ d] eclaratory [j] udgment." The judgment noted
the parties who had been present and provided a listing of relevant filings and the
5
rulings.
Based thereon, the trial court declared that the May 18, 2022 Sheriff' s Sale
was " a valid, proper[,] and legal sale" and that Bayhi, the lawful purchaser, was
rightful owner of the property. Flowers' claims were denied. The trial court ordered
payment of amounts owed to the notary from the sale proceeds, but ordered that the
remainder of the proceeds be held in the registry of the court until further notice
after further examination and determination of concerning the Accounting of the
sale proceeds."
Flowers now appeals the June 24, 2022 judgment, contending the trial court
erred in 1) denying her motion to nullify judgments that substantively amended the
June 12, 2017 and October 18, 2018 judgments; 2) validating a Sheriff' s sale that
took place while a motion for new trial was pending and before the expiration of her
delay for taking a suspensive appeal; 3) granting a writ of fifa for an amount greater
than that of the judgment it sought to enforce; 4) in ordering the issuance of a writ
of fifa in an indeterminate amount; and 5) in denying her motion for new trial when
issuing a declaratory judgment that determined ownership of the property without
resolving the uncertainty relative to the sale proceeds and whether the writ of fifa
that gave rise to the sale was valid, timely, and enforceable.
DISCUSSION
A trial court has the inherent power and authority to control its docket. See
Wallace v. PFG, 2004- 1080 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 6/ 05), 916 So. 2d 175, 178.
Furthermore, La. Code Civ. P. art. 1551( A) authorizes the trial court to direct
attorneys and parties to appear before it for conferences to consider:
1) The simplification of the issues, including the elimination of
frivolous claims or defenses.
2) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings.
3) What material facts and issues exist without substantial
controversy, and what material facts and issues are actually and in
good faith controverted.
rel
4) Proof, stipulations regarding the authenticity of documents, and
advance rulings from the court on the admissibility of evidence.
5) Limitations or restrictions on or regulation of the use of expert
testimony under Louisiana Code of Evidence [ a] rticle 702.
6) The control and scheduling of discovery including any issues
relating to disclosure or
discovery of electronically stored
information, and the form or forms in which it should be produced.
7) Any issues relating to claims of privilege or protection of trial
preparation material, and whether the court should include
agreements between counsel relating to such issues in an order.
8) The identification of witnesses, documents, and exhibits.
9) The presentation of testimony or other evidence by electronic
devices.
10) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action.
After the conference, the court is required to " render an order which recites
the action taken at the conference, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the
agreements made by the parties as to any of the matters considered, and which limits
the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements of counsel."
La. Code Civ. P. art. 1551( B). That order then " controls the subsequent course of
the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice." La. Code Civ.
P. art. 1551( B).
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1551( D) further pertinently
provides:
If a suit has been pending for more than one year since the date of filing
of the original petition and no trial date has been assigned, upon motion
of any party, the court shall set the matter for conference for the purpose
of resolving all matters subject to the provisions of this Article,
including the scheduling of discovery, assignment for trial, and any
other matters that will expedite the resolution of the suit.
Here, the trial court held a status conference then sua sponte ordered the
parties to file any pleadings they deemed necessary to assert their claims in this
matter. No responsive pleadings were allowed, and no contradictory hearing or trial
was held. Instead, without the presentation of any evidence or application of
ri
procedural rules, the trial court summarily rendered a declaratory judgment deciding
the ownership of immovable property and denied claims challenging the judgments
and orders that gave rise to the Sheriff' s sale of that property.
The trial court' s failure to follow procedural rules and legal principles in
rendering the judgment on appeal constitutes legal error. See Evans v. Lungrin,
97- 0541 ( La. 2/ 6/ 98), 708 So. 2d 731, 735. As a result, the judgment is unsupported
by any competent evidence. This court has no alternative but to vacate the trial
court' s judgment and remand this matter for proceedings conducted in accordance
with the rules of procedure and the formation of a complete record. C£ St. Pierre
v. St. Pierre, 479 So. 2d 575, 577 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1985) ( recognizing that an
appellate court can remand an action for proper consideration when the record is so
incomplete that it is unable to pronounce definitely on presented issues or where the
parties have failed, for whatever reason, to produce available evidence material to a
proper decision).
CONCLUSION
The trial court' s June 24, 2022 judgment is vacated, and this matter is
remanded for further proceedings. The assessment of appeal costs shall await final
disposition of this matter.
VACATED AND REMANDED.