LPR, L.L.C. v. Lynn C. Naquin and Denise Diaz Naquin

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 CA 0847

LPR, L.L.C.

VERSUS

LYNN C. NAQUIN AND DENISE DIAZ NAQUIN

Judgment Rendered:
FEB 1 9 2021

A

On Appeal from the
17" Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Lafourche
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 133171

Honorable F. Hugh Larose, Judge Presiding

Leslie J. Clement, Jr. Attorney for Plaintiff A
- ppellant,
Thibodaux, LA LPR, L.L. C.

Christopher H. Riviere Attorneys for Defendants -Appellees,
William N. Abel Lynn C. Naquin and Denise Diaz
Thibodaux, LA Naquin

BEFORE: THERIOT, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ.

HESTER, J.

Plaintiff, L.P. R., L.L.C., appeals the judgment of the trial court denying its

petition to confirm tax title to certain immovable property and granting the

reconventional demand to annul the tax sale filed by defendants, Lynn C. Naquin

and Denise Diaz Naquin. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a suit brought by plaintiff to confirm tax title relative to Lot Number

15, Addition Number 2, in Ridgefield Heights Subdivision ( the " Property"), after

acquiring tax sale title at a tax sale in Lafourche Parish. The Property was owned

by defendants, Lynn C. Naquin and Denise Diaz Naquin.

In connection with delinquent taxes owed on the Property, notices of tax sale

were sent on behalf of the Lafourche Parish Sheriff to " Naquin, Lynn C. and Naquin,

Denise D." via first class mail to the address of their residence on March 15, 2012

and April 5, 2012. There was no indication in the records of the sheriff' s office that

either the March 15th or April 5th dual notices were returned to sender.' Another

notice of tax sale was sent to " Lynn and Denise Naquin" at their residence via

certified mail on April 13, 2013. However, the April 13th notice was returned to

sender as unclaimed, unable to forward. Separate from the notices of tax sale sent

to defendants, interested party notices of tax sale were sent to " Lynn C. Naquin" at

the same address used in the other notices via first class mail and certified mail on

May 31, 2012. The notice sent via first class mail was not returned to sender, and

the notice sent via certified mail was actually received and signed on June 4, 2012.

After being advertised in the Daily Comet on May 18, 2012 and June 15, 2012,

the Lafourche Parish Sheriff, Craig Webre, conducted the tax sale on June 20, 2012.

Plaintiff purchased the tax sale title to 100% of the whole of the Property at the tax

The deputy tax collector for the Lafourche Parish Sheriff' s Office testified that all of the relevant
records kept by the sheriff' s office were in her care and custody.
N

sale, and the tax sale certificate was recorded in the conveyance records on July 18,

2012. Subsequently, a post -tax sale notice was sent to " Lynn C. Naquin" at the

Naquin' s residential address via first class mail on August 6, 2012. On the same

date, a post -tax sale notice was sent to " Lynn & Denise Naquin" at the same address

via first class mail. Neither of these notices were returned to sender.

Additionally, delinquent taxes were owed on the Property to the City of

Thibodeaux. Notices of tax sale were sent via certified mail to " Mr. Lynn & Mrs.

Denise Naquin" and to " Lynn C. Naquin" prior to the sale, and these notices were

received and signed. The City of Thibodeaux conducted a tax sale on June 20, 2012

at which time Michael McCoy purchased a tax sale title to five percent ( 5%) of the

whole of the Property. Thereafter, post -tax sale notices, dated July 29, 2012, were

sent to both " Lynn C. Naquin" and " Lynn and Denise Naquin" via regular mail on

August 6, 2012, neither of which were returned to sender. On December 22, 2016,

plaintiff purchased the undivided five percent ( 5%) interest in the Property acquired

by Michael McCoy at the City of Thibodeaux tax sale.

On July 19, 2017, plaintiff filed suit to quiet and confirm the title to the

Property in accordance with La. R.S. 47: 22662 and requested service on defendants

2 Louisiana Revised Statute 47: 2266 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

1) After expiration of the redemptive period, an acquiring person may institute an
ordinary proceeding against the tax sale parties whose interests the petitioner seeks
to be terminated. The petition shall contain a description of the property, the time
and place of the sale, and the name of the officer who made the sale, the page and

record book and date of filing of the tax sale certificate, [... ], notice that the
petitioner is the holder of tax sale title to the property by virtue of tax sale [... ], and
notice that the title and full ownership in the property will be confirmed unless a
proceeding to annul is instituted within six months after the date of service of the
petition and citation. This suit shall be brought in the parish in which the property
is located unless it lies in two or more parishes, in which case this suit may be
instituted in either of the parishes.

B. In all cases when tax titles have been quieted by prescription of five years under
the provisions of Article VII, Section 25 of the Louisiana Constitution, the

purchaser, donee, or his heirs or assigns may, either obtain a judgment of the court
confirming the title by suit in the manner and form in Subsection A of this Section,
except that the delay for answer shall be ten days instead of six months, provided
that the failure to bring suit shall in no manner affect such prescriptive titles.

3

at the address of their residence. Defendants answered plaintiff' s petition and

asserted a reconventional demand to annul the Lafourche Parish tax sale, asserting

that the tax sale was a nullity, that the tax collector failed to provide proper pre -sale

and post -sale notices to the defendants, and that the tax collector failed to comply

with minimal procedural due process requirements.' A supplemental and amending

petition was filed in which plaintiff affirmatively alleged that notices of the tax sale

were sent before and after the sale, and plaintiff attached as exhibits the notices, Tax

Sale Certificate, and an Amended and Corrected Tax Sale Certificate (" Amended

Tax Sale Certificate").' Plaintiff later filed a third supplemental and amending

petition to confirm the title to the undivided five percent (5%) interest acquired from

the City of Thibodeaux tax sale purchaser.5 Plaintiff also claimed in the event that

either tax sale was nullified,' it was entitled to all amounts paid at the Lafourche

Parish and City of Thibodeaux tax sales, all taxes subsequently paid, all costs

incurred, as well as ten percent ( 10%) interest.

At the conclusion of the civil bench trial on February 28, 2020, the trial court

ordered post -trial memoranda, and the matter was taken under advisement. On April

7, 2020, the trial court issued reasons for judgment as well as a judgment denying

plaintiff' s petition to confirm the tax sale title acquired at that Lafourche Parish tax

sale because plaintiff failed to show that proper notice was provided to defendants.

The trial court deemed the tax sale null and granted defendants' reconventional

demand to annul the tax sale. While the trial court determined that the City of

3 Defendants also filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, which
was denied.

4 The Amended Tax Sale Certificate modified the initial Tax Sale Certificate to provide the name
of Lynn C. Naquin in the heading as well as in the body.

5 A second supplemental and amending petition was filed to add as defendants the sheriff in his
capacity as ex officio tax collector as well as the third party contractor utilized by the sheriff in
connection with tax sales; however, both added defendants were voluntarily dismissed shortly
thereafter.

6 It is noted that defendants did not seek to nullify the City of Thibodeaux Tax Sale.
11

Thibodeaux tax sale was valid, it concluded that plaintiff did not own enough of an

interest to force a sheriff's sale and indicated that defendants must be given the

chance to purchase plaintiff' s shares at a private sale pursuant to La. R.S. 9: 1113.

Plaintiff timely filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial

court on May 6, 2012. Plaintiff then filed the instant appeal of the trial court' s April

7, 2020 judgment. Plaintiff assigns the following errors for this court' s review:

1) The trial court erred in placing the burden of proof on plaintiff to show

that the Lafourche Parish tax sale was valid;

2) The trial court erred in finding the Lafourche Parish tax sale defective and

that the defendants were deprived of their due process rights;

3) The trial court erred in annulling instead of confirming the tax sale title

from the Lafourche Parish tax sale; and

4) Alternatively, the trial court erred in failing to indicate that the annulment

of the Lafourche Parish tax sale would be set aside unless defendants paid the

purchase price, all taxes and costs paid, and ten percent ( 10%) interest within one

year from the date of the judgment annulling the sale.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In all civil cases, the appropriate standard for appellate review of factual

determinations is the manifest error -clearly wrong standard, which precludes the

setting aside of a trial court' s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in

light of the record reviewed in its entirety. Hayes Fund for First United Methodist

Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 2014- 2592 ( La.

12/ 8/ 15), 193 So. 3d 1110, 1115. However, legal findings of a trial court are assessed

by a court of appeal using the de novo legal standard of review. Kevin Associates,

L.L.C. v. Crawford, 2003- 0211 ( La. 1/ 30/ 04), 865 So. 2d 34, 43. To the extent a

trial court' s decision was based on its erroneous interpretation or application of law,

such decision is not entitled to deference. Id. ( quoting Kern Search, Inc. v.

5

Sheffield, 434 So. 2d 1067, 1071- 72 ( La. 1983)). Accordingly, a court of appeal is

required to determine whether the trial court applied the law appropriately. Voisin

v. Int' l Companies & Consulting, Inc., 2005- 0265 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 2/ 10/ 06), 924

So. 2d 277, 279, writ denied, 2006- 1019 ( La. 6/ 30/ 06), 933 So. 2d 132.

Moreover, it is well- settled that where one or more trial court legal errors

interdict the fact- finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable,

and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make its own

independent de novo review of the record and determine a preponderance of the

evidence. Legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law

and such errors are prejudicial, i.e., when they materially affect the outcome and

deprive a party of substantial rights. When such a prejudicial error of law skews the

trial court' s finding of a material issue of fact and causes it to pretermit other issues,

the appellate court is required, if it can, to render judgment on the record by applying

the correct law and determining the essential material facts de novo. Evans v.

Lungrin, 1997- 0541 ( La. 2/ 6/ 98), 708 So. 2d 731, 735.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Article VII, Section 25 of the Louisiana Constitution provides for tax sales as

follows:

A) Tax Sales. ( 1) There shall be no forfeiture of property for
nonpayment of taxes. However, at the expiration of the year in which
the taxes are due, the collector, without suit, and after giving notice to
the delinquent in the manner provided by law, shall advertise for sale
the property on which the taxes are due. The advertisement shall be
published in the official j ournal ofthe parish or municipality, or, if there
is no official journal, as provided by law for sheriffs' sales, in the
manner provided for judicial sales. On the day of sale, the collector
shall sell the portion of the property which the debtor points out. If the
debtor does not point out sufficient property, the collector shall sell
immediately the least quantity of property which any bidder will buy
for the amount of the taxes, interest, and costs. The sale shall be without
appraisement. A tax deed by a tax collector shall be prima facie
evidence that a valid sale was made.

C

Article VII, Section 25( D) further provides that the manner of notice and form of

proceeding to quiet tax titles shall be provided by law.

Before referencing the " manner provided by law," mentioned in Section

25( A)( 1) and ( D) for notices and quieting tax title, it is important to note that our

review is confined to the statutes in effect at the time of the tax sale on June 20,

2012, as the law in effect on the date of the sale is controlling. See Central

Properties v. Fairway Gardenhomes, LLC, 2016- 1855, ( La. 6/ 27/ 17), 225 So. 3d

441, 448. The laws pertaining to the payment and collection of property taxes, tax

sales, and adjudicated property (Chapter 5 of Subtitle III of Title 47 of the Louisiana

Revised Statutes), in particular the manner by which the requisite constitutional

notice is effected, were substantively revised in 2008 through La. Acts, No. 819,

which was made effective on January 1, 2009. Id. While these statutes were

significantly amended again in 2012 by La. Acts, No. 836 ( and again in later years),

the 2012 amendments did not become effective until August 1, 2012, which was

after the tax sale in this case. See Alpha Capital US Bank v. White, 2018- 0827

La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 21/ 18), 268 So. 3d 1124, 1128 n.4, writ denied, 2019- 0135 ( La.

3/ 18/ 19), 267 So. 3d 89.

Pursuant to La. R. S. 47: 2121( A) and in accordance with the 2008 revisions,

the stated purpose of the revised laws was to amend and restate the law governing

the payment and collection of property taxes, tax sales, and redemptions, in part, to

encourage the payment and efficient collection of property taxes; to satisfy the

requirements of due process; provide a fair process and statutory price for the

redemption of tax sale and adjudicated properties; to encourage the return to

commerce of tax sale and adjudicated properties through clear procedures that allow

interested persons to carry out the title search and notification procedures considered

necessary under contemporary standards of due process to acquire merchantable title

to those properties; and to retain, to the extent not inconsistent with the stated

7

purposes of La. R. S. 47: 2121( A), the traditional procedures governing tax sales,

adjudications, and redemptions in Louisiana.

In furtherance of the purpose stated in La. R.S. 47: 2121( A), Act 819 of 2008

revised the law with regard to the manner by which notices of delinquency in

immovable property taxes must be provided in compliance with La. Const. art. VII,

25. Act 819 repealed former La. R.S. 47: 2180 and enacted La. R.S. 47: 2153, which

modified the provisions in former Section 2180. Most notably, La. R.S. 47: 21537

contains no requirement that the tax collector, after serving the pre -sale notices,

make out a proces verbal stating therein the names of delinquents so notified, their

post office addresses, a brief description of the property, the amount of taxes due

and how the service of notice was made," which was required in former La. R.S.

47: 2180( B).' At the time of the June 20, 2012 sale in this case, La. R.S. 47: 2153

simply required that notice of tax delinquency be sent to the delinquent taxpayer by

certified mail, return receipt requested, before a tax sale could be conducted.

In accordance with La. R.S. 47: 2121( B), a tax sale shall not transfer or

terminate the property interest of any person in a tax sale property until that person

has been duly notified and both the redemptive period and any right held by that

7 On June 20, 2012, La. R.S. 47: 2153 provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

A. No later than the first Monday of February of each year, or as soon thereafter as
possible, the tax collector shall send a written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to each tax notice party when the tax debtor has not paid all the statutory
impositions which have been assessed on immovable property, notifying the person
that the statutory impositions on the immovable property shall be paid within
twenty days after the sending of the notice or as soon thereafter before the tax sale
is scheduled, or that tax sale title to the property will be sold according to law. [... ]
B. ( 1)( a) At the expiration of twenty days' notice, counting from the day when the
last of the written notices are sent, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the tax
collector shall proceed to publish a notice to the tax debtors of the delinquency and
to advertise for sale the consolidated delinquent tax list under one form two times
within thirty days in the official journal of the political subdivision. [... ]
Both La. R.S. 47: 2153( A) and ( B)( 1)( a) provide safe harbor forms to utilize in conformity with
the statutory requirements.

8 While Official Revision Comments are not law, they are useful in determining legislative intent.
Central Properties, 225 So. 3d at 448. The 2008 Official Comment ( c) to La. R.S. 47: 2155
concerning tax sale certificates reiterates that the concept of a proces verbal was eliminated.

person to assert a payment or redemption nullity pursuant to La. R.S. 47: 2286 have

been terminated. Section 2121( C)( 1) confirms that only tax sale title is conferred

and further indicates that a tax sale title transfers to its holder ownership of said

property if the tax sale property is not redeemed at the end if the applicable

redemptive period. Also see La. R.S. 47: 2266.

Importantly, the term " tax sale property" is defined in La. R. S. 47: 2122( 20)

as property for which tax sale title is sold pursuant to La. R.S. 47: 2154 ( providing

the procedure for tax sales), and " tax sale title" is simply the set of rights acquired

by the tax sale purchaser. La. R.S. 47:2122( 22). A tax collector no longer auctions

the immovable property itself at a tax sale; rather, a tax sale title is auctioned, and

the tax collector issues a tax sale certificate to evidence the set of rights acquired.

La. R.S. 47: 2122( 22), 2154, and 2155. Also see Central Properties, 225 So. 3d at

448- 49. As defined in La. R. S. 47: 2122( 18), a " tax sale certificate" is the written

notice evidencing a tax sale, which is to be filed in accordance with La. R.S. 47: 2155

and 2196. As described by the Supreme Court, the term " tax sale" actually denotes

that it is a tax lien that is purchased in the form of a tax sale title, albeit with future

rights of ownership after due notice to all tax sale parties9 and the expiration of the

redemptive period, as well as the filing of a suit to quiet title. Central Properties,

225 So. 3d at 449. It is not until there is a judgment in a suit to quiet title (La. R.S.

47: 2266), a monition proceeding ( La. R.S. 47: 2271, et seq.), or a suit to terminate

the interests of the property owner ( La. R.S. 47: 2157) that a tax sale purchaser

acquires title and full ownership in a tax sale property.

Prior to the enactment of Act 819 of 2008, it was well- settled that a property

owner had to be given pre -sale notice that was reasonably calculated to apprise him

9 " Tax sale party" is defined in La. R.S. 47: 2122( 19) as the tax notice party, the owner ofproperty,
including the owner of record at the time of a tax sale, as shown in the conveyance records of the
appropriate parish, and any other person holding an interest, such as a mortgage, privilege, or other
encumbrance on the property, including a tax sale purchaser, as shown in the mortgage and
conveyance records of the appropriate parish.

0

of a pending tax sale, and without such notice the sale violated due process and was

an absolute nullity. Alpha Capital, 268 So. 3d at 1129 ( citing Lewis v. Succession

of Johnson, 2005- 1192 ( La. 4/ 4/ 06), 925 So. 2d 1172 and Mennonite Board of

Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 8001 103 S. Ct. 27061 2712, 77 L.Ed.2d 180

1983)). After the 2008 revisions, tax sales may no longer be attacked as absolute

nullities; 10 rather, there are three statutorily enumerated challenges which, if proven,

will nullify a tax sale certificate. Alpha Capital, 268 So. 3d at 1129; La. R.S.

47: 2286. Pursuant to La. R. S. 47: 2286, "[ n] o tax sale shall be set aside except for a

payment nullity, redemption nullity, or a nullity under R.S. 47: 2162, all of which are

relative nullities."

In this case, a redemption nullity is the only challenge that could be applicable.

A "redemption nullity" is specifically defined as " the right of a person to annul a tax

sale in accordance with La. R.S. 47: 2286 because he was not duly notified at least

six months before the termination of the redemptive period." La. R. S. 47: 2122( 10).

Further, La. R. S. 47: 2122( 4) provides as follows:

Duly notified" means, with respect to a particular person, that an effort
meeting the requirements of due process of law has been made to
identify and to provide that person with a notice that meets the
requirements of R. S. 47: 2156, 2157, 2206, 2236, or 2275, or with

service of a petition and citation in accordance with R.S. 47: 2266,
regardless of any of the following:

a) Whether the effort resulted in actual notice to the person.

b) Whether the one who made the effort was a public official or a

private party.

c) When, after the tax sale, the effort was made.

The applicable redemptive period is provided in La. Const. art. VII, § 25( B)( 1),

which provides that the property " shall be redeemable for three years after the date

io The 2008 Official Comment ( d) to La. R.S. 47: 2153 provides that " problems with the notice or
the publication do not create a nullity action," as the only causes for nullity are enumerated in La.
R.S. 47: 2286. As mentioned previously, only a tax sale title is auctioned at the tax sale, and the

tax sale does not transfer or terminate the property interest. La. R. S. 47: 2121( B) and ( C), 2122( 22)
and 2154. Also see Central Properties, 225 So. 2d at 448.

10

of recordation of the tax sale, by paying the price given, including costs, five percent

penalty thereon, and interest at the rate of one percent per month until redemption."

The proceedings to quiet tax title referenced in La. Const. art. VII, § 25( D),

are set forth in La. R.S. 47: 2266, which provides in pertinent part, as follows:

A. ( 1)
After expiration of the redemptive period, an acquiring person
may institute an ordinary proceeding against the tax sale parties whose
interests the petitioner seeks to be terminated. The petition shall
contain a description of the property, the time and place of the sale, and
the name of the officer who made the sale, the page and record book
and date of filing of the tax sale certificate, [... ], notice that the

petitioner is the holder of tax sale title to the property by virtue of tax
sale [... ],
and notice that the title and full ownership in the property will
be confirmed unless a proceeding to annul is instituted within six
months after the date of service of the petition and citation. This suit
shall be brought in the parish in which the property is located unless it
lies in two or more parishes, in which case this suit may be instituted in
either of the parishes.

B. In all cases when tax titles have been quieted by prescription of five
years under the provisions of Article VII, Section 25 of the Louisiana
Constitution, the purchaser, donee, or his heirs or assigns may, either
obtain a judgment of the court confirming the title by suit in the manner
and form in Subsection A of this Section, except that the delay for
answer shall be ten days instead of six months, provided that the failure
to bring suit shall in no manner affect such prescriptive titles.

When a tax purchaser sues to quiet a tax title, he puts that title at issue, and the former

owner may avail himself of any defense sufficient to defeat the tax title, e.g., the

defense of a redemption nullity pursuant to La. R.S. 47: 2122( 10) and 2286.

Cressionnie v. Intrepid, Inc., 2003- 1714 ( La. App. lst Cir. 5/ 14/ 04), 879 So. 2d

736, 739 ( referencing former La. R.S. 47: 2228, which was repealed pursuant to Act

819 of 2008 but the substance of former Section 2228 was reproduced in current La.

R. S. 47: 2266). Notwithstanding, it is well- settled that a tax sale is presumed to be

valid, and a tax deed by a tax collector shall be prima facie evidence that a valid sale

was made. See Id.; La. Const. art. VII, § 25( A)( 1).

11

ANALYSIS

In its first assignment of error, plaintiff argues that the trial court incorrectly

placed the burden of proof on plaintiff to show that the Lafourche Parish tax sale

was valid in its suit to confirm tax title. While plaintiff sought to confirm the tax

title acquired at the Lafourche Parish tax sale and put the title at issue, plaintiff

attached a copy of the Tax Sale Certificate as well as the Amended Tax Sale

Certificate to its supplemental and amending petition and included the requisite

allegations set forth in La. R. S. 47: 2266( A)( 1) in its original and subsequent

petitions.
Additionally, both the Tax Sale Certificate and Amended Tax Sale

Certificate were admitted into evidence at trial through the testimony of the deputy

tax collector for the Lafourche Parish Sheriff' s Office. Pursuant to La. R. S.

47: 2155( C), the Tax Sale Certificate is a tax deed for purposes of La. Const. art. VII,

25, which provides that a tax deed by a tax collector shall be prima facie evidence

that a valid sale was made. Because tax sales are presumed valid and the tax deed

constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the sale, the burden shifts to the

party attacking the tax sale to prove that the sale was invalid. Krieger v. USDT

Properties/ Mutual of Omaha Bank, 2015- 1563 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 8/ 22/ 16), 199

So. 3d 1194, 1198.

In ruling that plaintiff "failed to show that proper notice was ever given to the

defendants" and deeming the tax sale null, the trial court failed to apply the law

12

appropriately." The Tax Sale Certificate as amended by the Amended Tax Sale

Certificate contained the information required by and was in the form set forth in La.

R.S. 47: 2155( A). Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 2155( A) provides, in pertinent part,

as follows:

The tax collector shall authenticate and file in accordance with law, in
person or by deputy, in the political subdivision' s name, a tax sale
certificate to purchasers of any property to which tax sale title was sold
for taxes, in which he shall relate in substance a brief history of the
proceedings had, shall describe the property, state the amount of the
taxes, interest, penalties, and costs and the bid made for the property,
and the payment made to him in cash, cashier' s check, certified check,
money order, credit card, or wire transfer, or other payment method,
shall sell tax sale title, and shall conclude the sale with the statement

that the property shall be redeemable at any time during the applicable
redemptive period beginning on the day when the tax sale certificate is
filed with the recorder of conveyances in the parish in which the
property is located. The tax sale certificate shall contain the full name
and address of the tax sale purchaser.

There is no requirement that the tax sale certificate contain " the names of

delinquents so notified, their post office addresses, [... ] and how the service of notice

was made" as required under former La. R. S. 47: 2180( B), which was repealed by

Act 819 of 2008. The trial court' s ruling stating otherwise is clearly contrary to the

applicable law and constitutes legal error. Evans, 708 So. 2d at 735. As a

consequence, the trial court also failed to shift the burden of proof to the parties

attacking the tax sale. See Krieger, 199 So. 3d at 1198. Plaintiff' s first assignment

of error has merit.

11
Specifically, the trial court determined as follows:
The notice was insufficient to meet the requirements of Louisiana Revised Statutes
47: 2153, in that: ( i) notice was provided to only Denis Diaz Naquin and further
indicates that Lynn C. Naquin, a co- owner of the property, was never provided
notice of the tax sale; ( ii) it does not state the address to which the notice was
allegedly mailed; ( iii) it does not state that notice was sent with return receipt
requested; ( iv) it does not provide the dates the required pre -sale notice was
provided; and ( v) there are no copies of any notices or return receipts attached.

Further, the amended and corrected tax sale certificate executed by the
Lafourche Parish Sherriff was also insufficient in that it only added Co- defendant
Lynn Naquin to the caption of [the] document and adding her as a co- owner of the
immovable property. The remaining four deficiencies listed above were still
unremedied.

13

While the parties submitted arguments respecting pre -sale notices, the failure

to give pre -sale notice to any tax notice party does not render the sale absolutely null

under the applicable law. 12 Alpha Capital, 268 So. 3d at 1131; also see Central

Properties, 225 So. 3d at 451 ( citing Adair Asset Management, LLC v. Turney,

50, 574 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 5/ 4/ 16), 195 So. 3d 501, writ denied, 2016- 01347 ( La.

11/ 7/ 16), 209 So. 3d 97). As provided in La. R.S. 47: 2121( D), except for acts and

omissions resulting in redemption or payment nullities, none of the provisions of

Chapter 5 of Subtitle III of Title 47 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes concerning

notices and procedures required in connection with a tax sale provide a ground for

nullifying the tax sale or the transfer at the end of the redemptive period of the

ownership in the tax sale property. 13 To the extent that the trial court nullified the

tax sale for failure to provide proper pre -sale notice, the trial court erred as a matter

of law. See Alpha Properties, 268 So. 3d at 1131. Plaintiff' s second assignment of

error has merit.

Defendants asserted affirmative defenses of nullity of the tax sale, lack of

proper pre -sale notice and post -sale redemption notice, and failure to provide

requisite procedural due process in response to plaintiff's petition to confirm tax title

and also filed a reconventional demand asserting their nullity action. Accordingly,

defendants bore the burden of proving that the tax sale was invalid or establishing a

redemption nullity sufficient to defeat the tax title. See Id.; Cressionnie, 879 So. 2d

at 739. In improperly placing the burden on plaintiff, the trial court legally erred,

12 It is noted, however, that pre -sale notice pursuant to the applicable version of La. R.S. 47: 2153
was provided to defendants via certified mail addressed to " Lynn and Denise Naquin," and the tax
sale was advertised twice prior to the sale. While the pre -sale notice sent via certified mail was
returned to sender as unclaimed, unable to forward, two other pre -sale notices addressed to both
defendants at the same address were sent via regular mail and were not returned to sender. See
Securities Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Triplett, 374 So.2d 1226, 1231 ( La. 1979); Wright v.
Cingular Real Estate Holdings of Louisiana, L.L.C., 2009- 1825 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 7/ 1/ 10) 2010
WL 2637907, * 2.

13 "
In keeping with the emphasis of the revision, the important notice is a notice of the right to
redeem." La. R.S. 47: 2286, 2008 Official Comment ( b); also see Alpha Properties, 268 So. 3d at
1130.

14

and we will conduct a de novo review. See Kevin Associates, L.LC., 865 So. 2d at

43; Evans, 708 So. 2d at 735.

In connection with their assertion of a redemption nullity pursuant to La. R.S.

47: 2286, defendants were required to establish that they were not " duly notified at

least six months prior to the termination of the redemptive period." La. R.S.

47: 2122( 10). Defendants, however, did not submit any evidence or offer any

testimony at trial. Despite defendants' failure to adduce evidence in support of their

contentions, plaintiffs provided testamentary and documentary evidence at trial.

The post -tax sale notices sent to both " Lynn & Denise Naquin" and to " Lynn

C. Naquin" to defendants' residential address via first class mail on August 3, 2012

were sent at least six months prior to the termination of the three- year redemptive

period in this case. Neither of these notices were returned to sender. These written

notices were sent in accordance with La. R. S. 47: 2156( B), 14 which permits post -sale

notices to be sent via U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to each tax notice party. The

notices provided that the Property was sold to plaintiff at a tax sale, indicated the

Property on which the taxes were delinquent, provided the relative tax account

number for the Property, and indicated that the Property could be redeemed within

three years from July 18, 2012 ( the date the sale was recorded).

14 The version of La. R. S. 47:2156( B) in effect at the time of the tax sale on June 20, 1012 provided,
in pertinent part, as follows:

For each property for which tax sale title was sold at tax sale to a tax sale purchaser:
1) If the redemptive period is greater than two years, each January or as soon as
practical thereafter, each tax collector shall send a written notice by United States
mail, postage prepaid, to each tax notice party and each tax sale party whose interest
would be shown on a thirty-year mortgage certificate in the name of the tax debtor
and whose interest was filed prior to the filing of the tax sale certificate that tax sale
title to the property has been sold at tax sale.

3) The notice shall be given until the end of the applicable redemptive period. The
notice shall specify the property upon which the taxes are delinquent, the amount
of taxes due, and the manner in which the property shall be redeemed [... ].
Section 2156( B)( 3) further sets forth a safe harbor form for compliance with the prescribed notice.

15

Based on the evidenced presented, an effort meeting the requirements of due

process of law in providing notice pursuant to La. R.S. 47: 2156 was made such that

defendants were " duly notified" of their right to redeem pursuant to La. R.S.

47: 2122( 4). 15 See Stow -Serge v. Side by Side Redevelopment, Inc., 2020- 0015

La. App. 4th Cir. 6/ 10/ 20), 302 So. 3d 71, 78, writ denied, 2020- 00870 ( La.

10/ 14/ 20), 302 So. 3d 1120 ( applying a later version of La. R.S. 47: 2156, which is

substantially similar to the version of La. R.S. 47: 2156 applicable herein). More

importantly, defendants failed to produce contrary documentary evidence or

otherwise submit testimony in order to carry their burden that they were not duly

notified at least six months prior to the termination of the redemptive period.

Accordingly, under our de novo review, we find that the trial court erred in annulling

the 2012 Lafourche Parish tax sale. Defendants failed to establish any defense

sufficient to defeat the tax sale or otherwise prevent plaintiff from confirming the

tax title pursuant to La. R. S. 47: 2266. Due notice was provided to all tax sale parties,

and plaintiff filed suit after the applicable redemptive period had expired. Therefore,

the trial court also erred in denying plaintiff's petition to confirm the tax title. See

Central Properties, 225 So. 2d at 449- 50. Plaintiff' s third assignment of error has

merit.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, we find merit in plaintiff's assignments of error. 16

Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the April 7, 2020 judgment of the trial court

denying the petition to confirm tax title filed by LPR, L.L.C. and granting the

15
Additionally, there is no indication in the record that defendants were not served with petition
and citation in this suit brought pursuant to La. R.S. 47: 2266 after the expiration of the redemptive
period and including all recitals required by La. R.S. 47: 2266. " Duly notified" includes when an
effort meeting the requirements of due process of law has been made to identify and provide that
person with service of a petition and citation in accordance with La. R.S. 47: 2266. La. R. S.
47: 2122( 4).

16 We pretermit discussion of plaintiff' s alternative assignment of error regarding the setting aside
of the annulment in light of our findings herein.

16

reconventional demand to annul the tax sale filed by Lynn C. Naquin and Denise

Diaz Naquin and remand this matter for the entry of a judgment consistent with the

findings herein. All costs of this appeal are assessed to defendants, Lynn C. and

Denise Diaz Naquin.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

17