Ec Ridgefield Apt Versus Casandra Winbush

EC RIDGEFIELD APT NO. 24-C-248

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

CASANDRA WINBUSH COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

June 13, 2024

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE CASANDRA WINBUSH

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE SECOND PARISH COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON,
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE RAYLYN R. BEEVERS, DIVISION "B",
NUMBER 140-922

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois

WRIT GRANTED, JUDGMENT REVERSED,
EXCEPTION OF PREMATURITY GRANTED,
CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendant, Ms. Casandra Winbush, is a single mother living in an apartment
owned by the plaintiff, Ridgefield, with rent payments fully subsidized by HUD.
On February 16, 2024, plaintiff notified Ms. Winbush in writing that it was
instigating eviction proceedings for various alleged lease infractions. Plaintiff then
sought a rule of eviction from the Justice of the Peace.

The Justice of the Peace entered a judgment of eviction on March 26, 2024
in favor of plaintiff, stating that Ms. Winbush had until April 19, 2024 to vacate
the premises based on lease violations. Ms. Winbush, through counsel, filed a
Petition for Trial De Novo and Stay of Justice of the Peace Eviction in the Second
Parish Court, which was granted. The Second Parish Court judge set trial for May
3, 2024. On that date, counsel for Ms. Winbush orally requested that she be
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, which the parish court also granted.
Counsel for Ms. Winbush then orally excepted to the proceedings as premature,
arguing that the landlord failed to follow the pre-eviction procedure required in the
HUD Model Lease. Ms. Winbush also testified at the hearing that she had
contacted a representative with the complex, Patricia, who was too busy to discuss
the violations with her. Ms. Winbush subsequently contacted another Ridgefield
representive, Emily, who said she would talk to Patricia and call Ms. Winbush
back, but Emily never called her back.

Counsel for Ridgefield conceded that Ms. Winbush had contacted a
Ridgefield representative:

[W]ith respect to the 30 day notice of eviction … Ms.
Winbush did, in fact, contact the complex about a
grievance within ten days. It was six days later she called
them. The terms of the lease requires [sic] the grievance
to be in writing. It was never done in writing on her part.
The 30 day eviction notice clearly outlines the six
separate violations that warranted the eviction and it
articulates what she signed on 8/3/22, which was the
material noncompliance agreement in this matter and
therefore we do not believe there’s any prematurity in
this matter.

The parish court denied the exception of prematurity, and counsel for Ms.
Winbush indicated her intent to seek a supervisory writ. The parish court also
stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of this Court’s consideration of the
present writ application. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the parish court’s
ruling.

The dilatory exception of prematurity questions whether the judicial right of
action has yet to come into existence because some prerequisite condition has not
been fulfilled. Benoit v. Benoit, 21-865 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/25/22), 341 So.3d 573,
579, writ denied, 22-704 (La. 6/22/22), 339 So.3d 1185. Appellate courts generally
review a lower court’s decision concerning an exception of prematurity for
manifest error. Id. (citing Code v. Dep’t of Public Safety & Corrections, 11-1282
(La. App. 1 Cir. 10/24/12), 103 So.3d 1118, 1127, writ denied, 12-2516 (La.
1/23/13), 105 So.3d 59). If the dilatory exception pleading prematurity is sustained,
the premature action, claim, demand, issue or theory shall be dismissed. La. C.C.P.
art. 933 A.

Ms. Winbush’s contract with plaintiff, which consists of the Model Lease,
the Lease Addendum, and various attachments, contains more than 50 pages. The
Model Lease, Section 23, paragraph e, states in pertinent part:

If the Landlord proposes to terminate this
Agreement, the Landlord agrees to give the Tenant
written notice and the grounds for the proposed
termination.… All termination notices must:
o specify the date this Agreement will be terminated;
o state the grounds for termination with enough
detail for the Tenant to prepare a defense;
o advise the Tenant that he/she has 10 days within
which to discuss the proposed termination of
tenancy with the Landlord. The 10-day period
will begin on the earlier of the date the notice was
hand-delivered to the unit or the day after the date
the notice is mailed. If the Tenant requests the

meeting, the Landlord agrees to discuss the
proposed termination with the Tenant;
o and advise the Tenant of his/her right to defend the
action in court.

(Emphasis added). Section 8, “Eviction Procedures,” found in the “House Rules
Ridgefield Apartments Partners, Ltd, Attachment 3 of HUD Model Lease,” states,
in relevant part:

When an eviction is necessary, written notice will be
provided to the tenant and the following will be
included in the notice:

 The specific date the tenancy will be terminated
 Detailed reason(s) for the action
 References to prior violation notices for the above
item(s)
 Notification to the tenant that remaining in the unit
on the termination date specified may result in the
owner seeking to enforce the termination in court,
at which time the tenant may present a defense
 Warning to the tenant that s/he has 10 days to
discuss the termination of tenancy with the
owner/agent. The 10 day time period begins on
the date that the notice has been properly
served.

(Emphasis added). Section 11, “Grievance and Appeal Procedures” of the same
Attachment 3, states:

For lease violations and/or eviction proceedings:

1. Written notification will be provided to a resident for
any lease violation or eviction proceeding
2. The resident will have 10 days to request, in
writing, a meeting to discuss the lease violation or
eviction
3. The resident is allowed to have a representative
participate in an informal meeting
4. The meeting will be conducted by a member of
management who was not involved in the lease
violation letter or eviction proceeding
5. Written determination will be provided to the resident

(Emphasis added).

The eviction letter sent to Ms. Winbush indicates Ridgefield is terminating
the lease agreement effective March 17, 2024. The letter then alleges six lease
violations and their corresponding dates, stating: “These activities are in direct
violation of the lease agreement, signed 08/3/2022 (Sec 23 Material Non-

Compliance).” Finally, the letter states: “Demand for possession is hereby made.
You are hereby given notice to vacate the dwelling on or before midnight on the
30th day of this notice. Your failure to move out then will result in appropriate
legal action before justice of the peace. Delay or postponement of such action does
not constitute a waiver.” The letter, the Model Lease, and the Lease Addendum
were all introduced as evidence at the hearing on the exception of prematurity,
with no objection from counsel for Ridgefield.

In direct violation of both the Model Lease, Section 23(e), and Attachment
3, Section 8 of the Lease Addendum, Ridgefield’s eviction letter failed to warn Ms.
Winbush that she has ten days to discuss the termination of tenancy. The letter also
fails to notify Ms. Winbush of her “right to defend the action in court,” as further
specified in the Model Lease, Section 23(e). Although Ms. Winbush testified, and
counsel for Ridgefield conceded, that she contacted Ridgefield representatives by
telephone in a timely manner, Ms. Winbush’s attempt to discuss the matter does
not absolve Ridgefield of fulfilling the Lease requirements associating with
termination.

In Versailles Arms Apartments v. Pete, 545 So.2d 1193 (La. 4th Cir. 1989),
the Fourth Circuit considered identical HUD lease language requiring the landlord
to notify the tenant of the right to discuss the proposed termination within ten days.
Where the landlord’s termination letter failed to notify tenant that she had ten days
to discuss the matter with the landlord, the Court stated:

Proper notice to a tenant to vacate is a prerequisite to the
filing of a rule for possession. Proper notice of
termination (notice to vacate) was not given to the
defendant. Therefore, the trial court erred when it found
to the contrary. Plaintiff’s rule for possession should have
been dismissed.

545 So.2d at 1195 (internal citation omitted).

Due to Ridgefield’s failure to adhere to the notice requirements specified in
the Lease, we find Ms. Winbush’s exception of prematurity has merit, and the
parish court manifestly erred in failing to sustain the exception. Accordingly, we
grant the writ, reverse the lower court’s ruling, and sustain Ms. Winbush’s
exception of prematurity. Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 933 A, the matter is dismissed
without prejudice.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 13th day of June, 2024.

SMC
FHW
JGG

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 06/13/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-C-248
E-NOTIFIED
2nd Parish Court (Clerk)
Hon. Raylyn R. Beevers (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Christopher Kerrigan (Relator)

MAILED
Kenneth W. Andrieu (Respondent)
Attorney at Law
2900 Westfork Drive
Suite 610
Baton Rouge, LA 70827

- ,:
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION

■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mallPJece,
or on the front If space permits.
1, Article Addressed to:
If YES, enter dellve,y adcnsa below:
XP.nneth W. Andrieu
Attorney at Law
~soc Westfork Drive
:,uit:: 610
eaten Rouge, LA 70827
7.4-C-24/l 06-13-24
a Priority M a l l ~
Ill
111111111 RII IIIIIIIII II I llll II III II llll Ill
9590 9402 2434 6249 3567 12
3. Service Type
=Relll1ctedD8My &;;;Reollptfgr
a Adult &gnan a Registered Mali"'
O~Ma11Re9111cted
□ Certified Mall Reelrtcl8d DeMy
□ Collect on o.a-y M«chandlw
-2.-Artl-cl_e_N_u_m_ber_(Tltlnsfer
_ _from _ _l_abe_/J
_ _servfce _ _ _ _ o Collec;t on DellYely Restricted DelMry a Slgnatunl Confirmation"'
--, □ Slgnalln Contrmllllon
7 a1 b 2 a7 a □ aaa a9 s4 7 3 18 , Resb1ct9d DIIIMly RNtl1cted DellYely

PS Fonn 3811, Jijy 2015 PSN 7530-02-ooo-9053 Domestic Return Receipt i