Robert Duncan v. The City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

ROBERT DUNCAN, ET AL. NO. 2021 CW 0311

VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2

THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE,
PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE,
ET AL. APRIL 26, 2021

In Re: City of Baton Rouge/ Parish of East Baton Rouge,

applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District
Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 679099.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, M- CLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 2134( C)( 1)
requires that plaintiffs, as " person[ s] resisting the payment of
an amount of ad valorem tax due or the enforcement of a

provision of the ad valorem tax law ... timely pay the disputed
amount due under protest to the officer or officers designated
by law for the collection of the tax and shall give such officer
or officers, notice at the time of payment of [ their] intention
to file suit for the recovery of the protested tax." Moreover,
La. R. S. 47: 2134( C)( 2) requires that "[ a] legality challenge

suit must be filed within
thirty days from the date of the
protested payment." Here, plaintiffs do not specifically allege
that they paid the disputed amounts under protest nor that they
filed suit within thirty days from the date of the protested

payments. Moreover, while La. R. S. 47: 2134( E)( 1) does not

require multiple suits when a legality challenge has been made,
the taxpayer is nonetheless still required to pay the assessment
under protest and agree to abide by the pending decision of the
courts.
Plaintiffs do not allege that they did so herein.

Further, to La. R. S. 47: 2132, its
recover under
following
amendment by 2020 La. Acts 297, requires that a plaintiff must

prevail[ ] in a suit pursuant to R. S. 47: 2134( C)." See La.
R. S. 47: 2132( 2)( a). As noted above, plaintiffs cannot prevail

in a suit brought under La. R. S. 47: 2134( C) given that they did
not allege that they paid the disputed amounts under protest and
filed suit within thirty days therefrom. Even assuming that the
version of La. R. S. 47: 2132 in effect prior to the 2020
amendment applies herein, a party raising a
legality challenge

still must meet the requirements in La. R. S. 47: 2134 to be
afforded a remedy under La. R. S. 47: 2132. See e. g., New Orleans
Riverwalk Marketplace, LLC v. Louisiana, 2017- 0968 ( La. App. 4th
Cir. 4/ 30/ 18), 243 So. 3d 1070, writ denied, 2018- 0889 ( La.
9/ 28/ 18), 252 So. 3d 925. Because plaintiffs have not followed
the mandates in La. R. S. 47: 2134( C), they cannot recover under

either version of La. R. S. 47: 2132.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2021 CW 0311

PAGE 2 OF 2

Accordingly, we hereby grant the writ application, and we

reverse the trial court' s October 6, 2020 judgment to the extent
it denied the exceptions of no cause of action and prescription

filed by the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge.
We sustain the exceptions of prescription and no cause of

action, and we dismiss plaintiffs' action against the City of

Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge with prejudice.

JMG
PMC
WIL

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CL RK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT