Rhyn Duplechain, Assessor for St. Landry Parish v. Pbgs, LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

13-83

RHYN L. DUPLECHAIN, ASSESSOR FOR ST. LANDRY PARISH

VERSUS

PBGS, L.L.C., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 12-C-5081-A
HONORABLE JAMES P. DOHERTY JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Elizabeth A. Pickett,
and John E. Conery, Judges.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

Brian A. Eddington
Attorney at Law
8941 Jefferson Hwy, Suite 200
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
(225) 924-4066
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Rhyn L. Duplechain, Assessor

Cheryl M. Kornick
James C. Exnicios
Elisabeth L. Baer
LISKOW & LEWIS, APLC
701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000
New Orleans, LA 70139-5099
(504) 581-7979
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
PBGS, L.L.C. and
Port Barre Investments, LLC, c/o Spectra Energy Corp.

Lawrence P. Simon, Jr.
LISKOW & LEWIS, APLC
P. O. Box 52008
Lafayette, LA 70505-2008
(337) 232-7424
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
PBGS, L.L.C. and
Port Barre Investments, LLC, c/o Spectra Energy Corp.

Robert Dean Hoffman, Jr.
Attorney at Law
7039 Hwy 190 E. Service Rd #A
Covington, LA 70433-4961
(985) 727-3893
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Louisiana Tax Commission

PICKETT, Judge.

Tax assessor appeals the trial court’s grant of a taxpayer’s exception of lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

PBGS, L.L.C. c/o Spectra (PBGS)1 is the owner of an underground natural

gas storage facility situated in St. Landry Parish. For the 2011 tax year, St. Landry

Parish Tax Assessor Rhyn L. Duplechain (the Assessor) classified the storage

facility as “other property” and assessed it at 15% of fair market value. See

La.Const. art. 18, § (B)(5). PBGS filed an administrative appeal with the

Louisiana Tax Commission (LTC), asserting that the Assessor improperly

classified the storage facility as “other property” and that it should have been

classified as “land” which is assessed at 10% of fair market value. Id.

The Assessor filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

asserting that PBGS’s appeal “presents a question of constitutional interpretation

that is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial branch” because it

contests the classification of property under La.Const. art. 7, § 18. The LTC

denied the exception, and the Assessor filed suit, asserting that the trial court, not

the LTC, has jurisdiction to address PBGS’s complaints. The Assessor filed a

motion to stay the proceedings before the LTC which the LTC opposed. After a

hearing, the trial court denied the request. PBGS filed an exception of lack of

subject matter jurisdiction which the trial court granted after a hearing. The

Assessor appealed the trial court’s judgment granting the exception of lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.
1
We reference PBGS herein as the parties reference it in the record. In their submission
information contained on their trial court and appellate briefs, PBGS’s counsel, however,
reference counsel as representing “PBGS, L.L.C. and Port Barre Investments, LLC, c/o Spectra
Energy Corp.”

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The sole issue presented for review is whether the trial court has jurisdiction

to review the LTC’s denial of the Assessor’s exception of lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

The Assessor contends that pursuant to La.R.S. 47:1989(D), read in pari

materia with La.R.S. 47:1998, his appeal was properly presented to the trial court.

Section 1989(D)(1) provides: “All decisions by the tax commission are final

unless appealed to the district court within thirty days.”

The LTC hears appeals filed by taxpayers and assessors concerning

“assessment lists as certified by the local board of review” when those parties are

“dissatisfied with the determination of the local board of review.” La.R.S.

47:1989(A)-(B), respectively. Section 1998(A)(1)(a) (emphasis added) provides:

Any taxpayer . . . dissatisfied with the final determination of the
Louisiana Tax Commission under the provisions of R.S. 47:1989 shall
have the right to institute suit within thirty days of the entry of any
final decision of the Louisiana Tax Commission . . . in the district
court contesting the correctness of assessment.

Reading Sections 1989 and 1998 in pari materia, we conclude that the term

“decisions” in Subsection 1989(D) refers to “final determination” or “final

decision” by the LTC regarding an “assessment” and that the LTC’s denial of the

Assessor’s exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction was not a “final

decision” regarding “the correctness of assessment” as contemplated by La.R.S.

47:1989(D) and La.R.S. 47:1998. Accordingly, we find the Assessor’s argument

lacks merit.

Moreover, a declinatory exception of subject matter jurisdiction does not

determine the merits of the litigant’s claims and, therefore, is an interlocutory

2

exception that is not a final appealable judgment unless specifically provided for

by law. La.Code Civ.P. arts. 1841, 2083(C). See also Allen v. Valero Energy

Corp., 06-726 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/9/07), 951 So.2d 370; Johnson v. Shelton Trucking

Serv., Inc., 597 So.2d 499 (La.App. 1 Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 599 So.2d

1089 (La.1992). The Assessor has not cited any statute that specifically provides

for an appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the LTC denying an exception of

subject matter jurisdiction, and this court’s research has not revealed such a statute.

DISPOSITION

For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court granting the exception of

lack of subject matter filed by BCGS, L.L.C., c/o Spectra is affirmed, and this

matter is remanded to the Louisiana Tax Commission for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

3