Real Estate

August 23, 2023

Property Co-Owner Entitled To Reimbursement From Sale of Property For Certain Property Renovations

the_samuel_young_house-1024x683 Owning property is not easy, especially when you have to share ownership with multiple individuals. Co-ownership can present challenging issues, especially when one owner wants to make renovations or sell the property. This case examines a dispute among family members involving property in the Parish of St. Bernard in Louisiana.

The plaintiffs, including Charles Gettys, Jr., and defendants, including William Gettys, each had a one-fifth interest in the at-issue property. The plaintiffs sued to have the property sold and the proceeds divided among the five co-owners. William responded, claiming after Hurricane Katrina, the defendants said they no longer wanted to have an interest in the property and did not want to spend any more money on the property or repairs. William claimed he completed a property renovation and moved into the house following Hurricane Katrina. William claimed before Hurricane Katrina that he had agreed with Charles that they would renovate the property together and then sell it. Then, they would split the money they made from the sale. The renovations purportedly cost $46,000. William claimed Charles had agreed to split the renovation costs with him.

However, Charles had not paid for his share of the renovations. William argued Charles owed him his share of the total cost of the repairs and renovations. After trial, the court ordered the parties to sell the property via auction, at a $50,000 minimum bid, or through a private sale, with the first $48,476 of the proceeds to go to William to reimburse him for the renovations he carried out in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

July 27, 2023

Can A Renter Be Liable For An Injury Caused By a Leaky Apartment Ceiling?

by Berniard Law Firm

defense_gov_news_photo_526-1024x680 When renting an apartment, tenants expect a safe and secure living environment. However, what happens when an accident occurs due to negligence by the apartment owner and management company? If a leaky roof in your apartment injures you, can you make a claim for your injuries? The following lawsuit answers that question.

Kim Faciane lived in the Golden Key Apartments. After moving out, she filed a lawsuit against Golden Key, who owned the apartment complex, and Ohio Management, who managed the complex, and its insurer (collectively, the defendants). She claimed one night, while asleep in her apartment, sheetrock fell from the ceiling because of the leak. She claimed it hit her leg and caused her to slip and injure her back and neck. She claimed the defendants were liable because they kept the apartment in disrepair, did not repair the ceiling after being informed it leaked, and otherwise not properly maintaining or inspecting the apartments.

The defendants filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that the lease had a provision that required Faciane to hold them harmless for any property or personal injury claims. They argued under La. R.S. 9:3221, Faciane was responsible for the premises’ conditions unless they were neglectful or failed to take action after she notified them in writing of a defect. They argued they did not know of any issues with the roof until after the accident occurred. Faciane countered the defendants had been notified about issues with the apartment’s ceiling at least two times before. The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed Faciane’s lawsuit, who appealed.

July 14, 2023

What happens if a roofer is injured while putting a new roof on your house?

by Berniard Law Firm

roofers_job_people_roof-1024x683 When accidents occur on a construction site, questions of liability and responsibility arise, leaving property owners wondering about their potential legal obligations. In a compelling lawsuit from Alexandria, Louisiana, the issue of whether a homeowner can be held liable for injuries sustained by a roofer while working on their property takes center stage. The case of Robert Schram v. Ronnie Waters provides valuable insights into this perplexing matter, shedding light on the factors determining a homeowner’s liability when a roofer falls from their roof.

Robert Schram, an employee of Dan Baker, slipped and fell while working on a tin roof. He fell while trying to catch a nail gun thrown from the ground causing him to break his ankle. He sued the property owner, Ronnie Waters, and his insurer Colony Specialty Insurance Company (Colony), claiming Waters was liable for his injuries because he was supposed to provide the necessary safety materials for the job.

The trial court granted Colony’s and Waters’s joint motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, which found no genuine issue of fact on the question of Waters’s liability. Schram appealed, claiming the trial judge committed a legal error in his decision because there are three issues of material fact concerning Waters’s negligence.

April 21, 2023

How Can I Prove Ownership of Land Through Aquisitive Prescription in Louisiana?

by Berniard Law Firm

field_land-1024x768 Aquisitive Prescription. It is a strange-sounding set of words, yet it can be vital in proving ownership of land and property in Louisiana. What exactly is it? The subsequent lawsuit helps answer that question and the following one: How can I prove ownership of land through acquisitive prescription in Louisiana?

Crystal and Gwendolyn Smith sued Raymond Felton, claiming they owned land in White Castle, Louisiana. The Smiths claimed Felton misrepresented that he owned the property, had entered the property without permission, and intentionally damaged the home located thereon. The Smiths sought injunctive relief prohibiting Felton from entering the property. The Smiths also sought damages for the damage to the property and the mental distress they suffered.

In response, Felton argued he owned the land at issue. Although Felton did not have the actual title to the at-issue property, he provided a chain of titles dating back to 1897, whereas the Smiths only dated back to 1899. The trial court ruled in favor of Felton because he and his ancestors in title had been in possession of the at-issue property for over thirty years, which is required to establish ownership by acquisitive prescription. See La. C.C. art. 3486. The Smiths filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. They then appealed.

April 15, 2023

What Happens When Your Insurance Agent Doesn’t Procure the Coverage You Asked For?

by Berniard Law Firm

housing_real_estate_estate-1024x681 Generally, when you ask an insurance agent for a specific policy, you expect them to honor your request. But what happens when your insurance agent doesn’t procure the coverage you requested for? The following case is an example of a property owner who believed he maintained insurance when he did not.

Ray Periso claimed he was an invitee to the property owned by Ban Vu when a balcony railing collapsed, causing Periso to fall fifteen feet. Periso also claimed that his subsequent injuries resulted from Vu’s negligence. Periso sued Vu, who then turned to his insurance company to provide coverage and representation for the claim. Vu was then told he didn’t have insurance coverage, which surprised him as he believed he told his insurance agent to “procure all necessary insurance on his properties for personal and property protection. “

To seek coverage, Vu filed a third-party demand against Frazier Insurance Agency, Inc. and Jamie Frazier (collectively referred to as “Frazier”), alleging negligence in not procuring a policy that provided personal liability coverage, as he requested. A hearing occurred in the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Tammany, Louisiana, wherein Frazier sought to exit the litigation by way of a peremption objection. The 22nd JDC ruled for Frazier, and an appeal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal First Circuit followed.

February 19, 2023

When a Building’s Ledge is Open and Obvious, Building Owner Not Held Liable for Fall

by Berniard Law Firm

doorway_1-686x1024 Tripping over a ledge in public can be both embarrassing and painful. Sometimes the fall can result in serious injuries. Who should be at fault for any damages sustained? As with many legal issues, it depends. Unfortunately for one woman in Covington, Louisiana, the apparent nature of the ledge, coupled with her own activities contributing to the fall, led the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal to dismiss her case.

While soliciting a security systems company, Ms. Dale Cordell fell outside the Tanaka Building in Covington, Louisiana. Rather than attempting to enter through a doorway, Ms. Cordell walked through a patch of grass between the Tanaka Building and neighboring buildings. After looking through the window, Ms. Cordell walked back through the grass towards the street, where she tripped on a short ledge. She fell to her knees, hit her hands, and head on the cobblestone in front of the Tanaka Building. Ms. Cordell filed a lawsuit in the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany against Lorna Madison, the owner of the building, as well as several other parties, alleging severe injuries due to the unreasonably risky ledge at the Tanaka Building.

Ms. Madison filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the case based upon Ms. Cordell’s inability to prove the existence or knowledge of a defect that could have created an unreasonable risk of harm. The District Court agreed for one reason that a color change between the ledge and the cobblestone existed, putting pedestrians on notice. The District Court further noted that Ms. Cordell was not using the proper entrances or exits leading to and from the building. Ms. Cordell appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing the District Court did not understand the facts of her case regarding the open and obvious nature of the ledge.

February 10, 2023

Fifth Circuit Court Finds Succession Administrator Can Bring Civil Rights Action

by Berniard Law Firm

maracaibo_venezuela_building_old-1024x788 What would you do if you were heir to property and found out the City had issued a demolition order for that property? A recent case decided in New Orleans discusses that question. The City of New Orleans, Louisiana, brought administrative proceedings against property owners whose property was allegedly blighted. However, the situation became more complicated because the property owners were deceased.

Before the City of New Orleans (“the City”) held the hearing, it sent the property owners notice by certified mail. The notice stated that if the property owners did not appear for the hearing, their absence would be considered an admission of liability. Even though the U.S. Postal Service returned the notice as “Not Deliverable” and “Unable to Forward,” the City still proceeded with the hearing.

At the hearing, the City assessed significant fines for code violations and issued a demolition order for the property. After the hearing, the City sent the property owners a notice via certified mail stating the property owners had 30 days to correct the code violations or else the City would demolish the property. The U.S. Postal Service again returned the notice as “Not Deliverable.”

February 22, 2020

Unlit, Unfinished Attic: An Open and Obvious Danger?

by Berniard Law Firm

orange-and-gray-painted-roof-under-cloudy-347152-1024x684 There’s a general understanding between a buyer and a seller that the seller will provide the good in an acceptable condition for a buyer. If the product is faulty, then the general understanding is that the seller will take responsibility for making things right as soon as they can. This is even solidified by warranties. What happens, then, when a construction company sells a New Orleans resident a roof that leaks so much it leads to a man slipping and falling? Is the danger created by the leak so obvious that the construction company shouldn’t be held liable for the injury?

This problem arose when Magnolia Roofing and Exteriors (“Magnolia”) installed a new roof at the home of Tammy Stewart. Ms. Stewart was never completely happy with the quality of the roof when it was installed in September 2011, but significant leaks didn’t appear until January 2013, a few months after Hurricane Isaac wrecked New Orleans. The leaks were so bad that water came through her second-floor attic, through the ceiling, and trickled down the chandelier in her foyer. Magnolia’s parent company, Sears Home Improvement Products, sent repairmen to look at the damage a few days later. Ms. Stewart was at work so her friend, Glenn Jones, let them in to the attic to see where the leak was. The attic was consistently described as “unfinished, unlit, [and] wet.” Since the attic was unfinished and without light, Mr. Jones was standing on a crossbeam between the sheetrock and using his cell phone for light. When he turned around to show the worker where the leak was, he slipped and fell 16 feet through the sheetrock into the first-floor foyer. Mr. Jones sustained multiple serious injuries as a result and brought a case of negligence against Ms. Stewart and Magnolia.

The core issue of this case before the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was the open and obvious doctrine. If it is plainly clear to everyone that a danger exists, then a defendant is not liable for an injury that occurs. The defendant must show that the danger is open and obvious to benefit from this legal doctrine. See Scarberry v. Entergy Corporation, et al., N.V., 136 So.3d 204 (La. Ct. App. 2014). Magnolia claimed the wet crossbeams were a clear and obvious danger; the trial court agreed with them on summary judgment and found them not liable. The trial court explicitly limited the entire review of Magnolia’s petition to this one issue, so the Fourth Circuit did the same. See La. C.C.P. art. 2164. Mr. Jones refuted this claim by saying that the darkness of the attic was the obvious danger, not the wetness of the beams, and the darkness did not cause the injury, so Magnolia could be liable.

January 7, 2020

How to Protect Your Rights in a Wrongful Eviction Case

by Berniard Law Firm

architecture-brick-building-construction-259957-1024x667 It is difficult to fully know and understand the law. This is why lawyers attend law school for three years, and then complete continuing education for the rest of their careers. Many times a party to a lawsuit will try to carry on without a lawyer, but the unfortunate truth is that this can actually lead to more headaches and financial woes than expected.

In Iota, Louisiana, a woman was allegedly blind-sided by eviction. An unemployed single mother, Erica Scott was accustomed to paying her rent a few days late from time to time. But her apartment company, Southern Apartments, owned by MAC-RE, LLC, had changed their payment policy. Although they kept the first-of-the-month due date and 10-day grace period, they declared that any tenant who has not paid rent by the 11th day of the month will automatically have his or her lease terminated and eviction procedures would begin. The manager of Southern Apartments, Sherry Hebert, went door-to-door with a memorandum stating this change, either handing it to those who answered their door, or leaving it with a note requesting that tenants come to the office to sign. Ms. Scott alleged that she never received this notice, and attempted to pay her rent to Ms. Hebert on the 13th of the month. This payment, however, was refused, and Ms. Scott was given five days to voluntary vacate her apartment.

Ms. Scott did indeed find a new residence at the end of the month and began to move her things. However, when she returned on the 6th of August, she stated that her locks were changed. Ms. Hebert disputes this, as she was personally unable to do change the locks and the maintenance man was on leave. Ms. Scott declared that $20,000 worth of property remained in the apartment, but Ms. Hebert disputed this as well. She states that when she went in to survey the property, all that remained was garbage, rotting food, broken toys and furniture, an old mattress, and dirty dishes.

September 6, 2019

Does a Letter from Lessor to Lessee Constitute Proper Notice for Termination of Lease?

by Berniard Law Firm

apartment-architectural-design-architecture-1693946-1024x736 Lease agreements are important documents that specify the rights and obligations of both lessor and lessee. Specifically, termination of leases must follow specified procedures and the tenant must be given adequate notice before leases can be terminated. That being said, does a letter from the lessor to the lessee constitute proper notice for termination of a lease? The Fourth District Court of Appeals of Louisiana recently held that a tenant was not given proper notice for termination of his lease and therefore, the termination was not valid.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Kenneth Lobell, plaintiff, suffered extensive damage to property that he leased from Cathy Rosenberg and 2025 Canal St., L.L.C. On December 28, 2007, Rosenberg sent a letter to Lobell stating that he had defaulted on certain lease payments for a three-story building located on 2025 Canal Street. Rosenberg subsequently sent letters on January 31, 2007 and February 12, 2008 regarding these defaulted payments. The letters also stated her desire to terminate the lease. After a bench trial, the trial court judge held that there was a proper termination of the lease and Mr. Lobell owed certain costs and back payments to Rosenberg and 2025 Canal St., L.L.C.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals of Louisiana disagreed with the trial court and held that the lease was not properly terminated. Because leases are contracts between lessor and lessee, they afford certain rights and obligations to each party. See La. C.C. 2668. Lessees must pay rents for the property according to the terms of the lease agreement, among other obligations. See La. C.C. 2683. When a lessee does not pay rent, a lessor has two options: 1) obtain a money judgment based on the amount owed or 2) cancel the lease. See Richard v. Broussard 495 So.2d 1291, 1293 (La. 1986). To terminate a lease, the lessor must follow specific eviction procedures. These procedures include giving a five-day notice to vacate, followed by judicial procedures to effectuate an eviction. See La. C.C.P. art. 4701; see also La. C.C.P. 4731; see also La. C.C.P. 4733.