James G. Gossen Versus Floyd Michael Landry

JAMES G. GOSSEN NO. 24-C-472

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

FLOYD MICHAEL LANDRY COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 21, 2024

Susan Buchholz
Chief Deputy Clerk

IN RE JAMES G. GOSSEN

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE E. ADRIAN ADAMS,
DIVISION "G", NUMBER 844-582

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT DENIED

In this possessory action, the relator/plaintiff, James G. Gossen, seeks
review of the trial court’s July 10, 2024 denial of his Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. Mr. Gossen contends that when defendant, Floyd Landry, filed a
reconventional demand asserting his ownership in the property at issue by means
of a petitory action, he judicially confessed to Mr. Gossen’s possession of the
property. La. C.C.P. art. 3657(B) provides that a defendant’s assertion of
ownership in a possessory action does not judicially confess the possession of a
plaintiff. The 2023 comments for La. C.C.P. art. 3657, specifically sections (a) and
(d), make clear that the “harsh penalty” of “judicial confession,” incurred by a
defendant who asserts title in himself in response to a possessory action, has been
eliminated. In addition, the plain language of La. C.C.P. art. 3657(C) limits
judicial confessions to the scenario where a defendant institutes a petitory action or
declaratory judgment action to determine ownership in a separate suit. Though
Section C generally prohibits the filing of reconventional demands in possessory
actions, we do not find that it constitutes a judicial confession regarding Mr.
Gossen’s possession in the present matter.

Further, after a de novo review, we find that the allegations in Mr. Gossen’s
petition do not exclude every reasonable hypothesis upon which Mr. Landry can
prevail. Serio v. Chadwick, 66 So.2d 9, 16 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1953). Establishing
possession of the Grand Isle property is central to resolving the case. While Mr.
Gossen claims “open and obvious possession” of the property, Mr. Landry’s pro se
answer/reconventional demand contains both assertions and evidence that he has
been the sole owner of the parcel at issue since 1991. The presence of a conflict in
the pleadings precludes the granting of a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

24-C-472

See, First Metropolitan Bank v. Plaia, 384 So.2d 560, 565 (La. App. 4th Cir.
1980). Based on the showing made, we find no basis upon which to disturb the
ruling of the trial court. Accordingly, the writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 21st day of October, 2024.

JJM
MEJ
SUS

2

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 10/21/2024 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-472
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable E. Adrian Adams (DISTRICT JUDGE)
No Attorney(s) were ENOTIFIED

MAILED
George L. Gibbs (Respondent) Cassie P. Gailmor (Relator)
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
3900 North Causeway Boulevard 700 Camp Street
Suite 1470 Suite 203
Metairie, LA 70002 New Orleans, LA 70130