State of Louisiana, Board of Ethics v. Maureen Robbins Saunders

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-1171

STATE OF LOUISIANA
BOARD OF ETHICS

VERSUS

MAUREEN ROBBINS SAUNDERS, AND
THE HON. CLYDE R. WEBBER, JR.,
CLERK OF COURT FOR CONCORDIA PARISH

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CONCORDIA, NO. 49682
HONORABLE JOHN C. REEVES, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

Saunders, J., concurs with written reasons.

Kathleen M. Allen
Michael D. Dupree
Tracy M. Barker
Suzanne Mooney
Brett Robinson
Vivian H. Williams
Post Office Box 4368
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
(225)219-5600/800-842-6630
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
State of Louisiana Board of Ethics

Maureen Robbins Saunders, In Proper Person
210 Elm Street
Vidalia, LA 71373
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Maureen Robbins Saunders

SAUNDERS, Judge.

The State of Louisiana Board of Ethics (the BOE) appeals the amended

judgment of the trial court which qualified Maureen Robbins Saunders (Ms.

Saunders) as a candidate for the Office of Alderman, District 3, City of Vidalia,

Parish of Concordia (the Office of Alderman), conditioned upon her payment of all

outstanding late fees, fines, and penalties. For the following reasons, we reverse

the trial court‟s judgment and render judgment disqualifying Ms. Saunders as a

candidate for the Office of Alderman.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter arises out of Ms. Saunders‟ notice of qualification for candidacy

for the Office of Alderman. Ms. Saunders was an incumbent member and had

served on the Board of Alderman for eighteen years.

When Ms. Saunders allegedly did not timely file a 2013 Tier 3 Annual

Personal Financial Disclosure Statement, the BOE alleges that Ms. Saunders

received a notice of delinquency on January 27, 2015. The BOE then issued an

order assessing a $1,500.00 late fee to Ms. Saunders on March 18, 2015. The letter

accompanying the order informed Ms. Saunders that she had twenty days from

receipt of the letter to either request a waiver or appeal the assessment. 1 The letter

further stated “that unpaid fines, fees, or penalties may have an adverse effect on

your ability to run for public office, as the Board of Ethics will object to your

candidacy in future elections pursuant to La.R.S. 18:491 and 18:492.” That letter

was dated March 18, 2015, and was transmitted to Ms. Saunders via certified mail,

1
Although Ms. Saunders later requested a waiver, there is no evidence that Ms. Saunders
contested the assessment or the grounds therefore.

1

return receipt requested. Ms. Saunders acknowledged in her trial testimony that

she received this letter, and it was admitted into evidence.

The BOE alleges that Ms. Saunders did not timely request a waiver of this

late fee. The BOE sent a letter to Ms. Saunders on May 13, 2015, which informed

her that her request for a waiver was untimely and that the $1,500.00 late fee was

due and owing and must be paid within ten days of the date of the letter. Again,

the letter informed Ms. Saunders “that unpaid fines, fees, or penalties may have an

adverse effect on your ability to run for public office, as the Board of Ethics will

object to your candidacy in future elections pursuant to La.R.S. 18:491 and

18:492.” Ms. Saunders acknowledged receipt of this letter in her trial testimony,

and it was admitted into evidence.

A demand letter was sent to Ms. Saunders on May 21, 2015, again

containing the warning about an adverse effect on the ability to run for public

office. On July 10, 2015, the late fee order dated March 18, 2015, was transferred

to the Louisiana Attorney General‟s Office for collection proceedings.

On July 17, 2015, the BOE sent a letter to Ms. Saunders notifying her that

she had an outstanding late fee and that the BOE would object to her candidacy to

any elected office as long as the late fee remained outstanding “even if you have a

payment plan.” The letter also advised that “[p]rior to qualifying, you must submit

your payment for the full amount owed.” (Emphasis added.) Ms. Saunders made

a $100.00 payment on September 22, 2015.

Ms. Saunders submitted her notice of candidacy to run for the Office of

Alderman for the March 5, 2016 election to the Honorable Clyde R. Webber, Jr.,

Clerk of Court of the Parish of Concordia (Clerk of Court) on December 2, 2015.

That notice contained a certification by Ms. Saunders that she did “not owe any

2

outstanding fines, fees, or penalties pursuant to the Code of Governmental Ethics.”

The notice of candidacy was admitted into evidence at the hearing, and Ms.

Saunders confirmed that her signature appeared thereon and acknowledged the

certification that she did not owe any fines, fees, or penalties. Ms. Saunders‟ trial

testimony also confirmed that she was aware that, at the time of the hearing, she

still owed $1,400.00.

On December 11, 2015, the BOE filed an objection to Ms. Saunders‟

candidacy alleging that Ms. Saunders owed fines totaling $1,400.00 to the BOE

which were outstanding as of the filing of her notice of candidacy such that her

certification was falsely sworn and that, consequently, Ms. Saunders was

prohibited from becoming a candidate for alderman pursuant to La.R.S.

18:429(A)(6).

The matter came for hearing on December 14, 2015. Without objection

from Ms. Saunders, the BOE introduced seven exhibits into evidence: (1) the

sworn notice of candidacy; (2) letter dated March 18, 2015, and a certified true

copy of the order assessing the $1,500.00 late fee; (3) letter dated May 13, 2015,

indicating that Ms. Saunders‟ request for waiver was untimely; (4) a certified true

copy of the demand letter dated May 21, 2015; (5) a certified true copy of the

transmittal sheet dated July 10, 2015, to the Attorney General; (6) affidavit of

Stacey T. Landry (attorney for the BOE) regarding the outstanding late fee; and (7)

a certified true copy of the BOE‟s objection to candidacy dated July 17, 2015.

Ms. Saunders, who acknowledged that she wished to appear without

counsel, did not submit any evidence. In a statement to the court, Ms. Saunders

said: “I‟ve been in office eighteen (18) years[,] and all I can say is, I didn‟t realize

3

that the fee had to be paid in complete, or I would have made the payment after

qualifying.”

On December 15, 2015, at 11:26 a.m., the trial court initially signed a

judgment disqualifying Ms. Saunders from running for alderman. Notice of

judgment was mailed that same day. At 11:39 a.m., on its own motion, the trial

court signed an amended judgment finding that Ms. Saunders was qualified to run

“on the condition of payment of all outstanding fees, fines, and penalties due to the

[BOE] within 3 days from” December 15, 2015. Notice of judgment was mailed

that same day.

The BOE filed a motion for appeal on December 15, 2015, stating that it

wished to appeal the amended judgment of the trial court. The order granting the

appeal was signed on December 16, 2015.

On December 17, 2015, the BOE asserts that it filed a motion for nullity in

the trial court, seeking to have the amended judgment declared a nullity on the

grounds that the amendment was substantive. No ruling by the trial court has been

made on this motion.

The BOE asserts two assignments of error on appeal. First, the BOE argues

that the amended judgment is null because it substantially altered the original

judgment. Second, the BOE argues that trial court erred in overruling its objection

to Ms. Saunders‟ candidacy where the evidence showed that she falsely certified

that she did not owe any outstanding fines.

DISCUSSION

The BOE argues that the amended judgment finding Ms. Saunders to be

qualified conditioned upon the payment of the amount owed is a nullity since it

substantially altered the original judgment that disqualified her. Louisiana Code of

4

Civil Procedure Article 1951 provides, in pertinent part, that: “[o]n motion of the

court or any party, a final judgment may be amended at any time to alter the

phraseology of the judgment, but not its substance, or to correct errors of

calculation.”

The BOE filed its motion to annul the amended judgment after an order of

appeal regarding the amended judgment had been signed by the trial court.

However, La.Code Civ.P. art. 2005 provides that “[a] judgment may be annulled

prior to or pending an appeal therefrom” and that “[a]n action of nullity does not

affect the right to appeal.” In Assensoh v. Diamond Nails, 04-1130, p. 6 (La.App.

4 Cir. 2/16/05), 897 So.2d 806, 810, writ denied, 05-601 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d

1073, the fourth circuit noted that “this article provides that „the two remedies may

be sought simultaneously.‟ 1 Frank L. Maraist and Harry T. Lemmon, Louisiana

Civil Law Treatise: Civil Procedure § 12.6 (1999).”

The BOE‟s motion for nullity is still pending in the trial court. We pretermit

discussion of the merits of that motion as we find that the trial court committed

manifest error in finding that Ms. Saunders was qualified to run for the Office of

Alderman based on the evidence before us. We seek to avoid multiple appeals in

this matter and are of the opinion that a resolution of this matter on the merits of

the amended judgment best serves the interests of judicial economy in this election

suit where time is of the essence.

The BOE asserts that Ms. Saunders must be disqualified as a candidate for

the Office of Alderman because she falsely certified that she did “not owe any

outstanding fines, fees, or penalties pursuant to the Code of Governmental Ethics.”

We agree.

5

Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:492(A)(6) provides that:

An action objecting to the candidacy of a person who qualified
as a candidate in a primary election shall be based on one or more of
the following grounds:

....

The defendant falsely certified on his notice of candidacy that
he does not owe any outstanding fines, fees, or penalties pursuant to
the Code of Governmental Ethics as provided in R.S. 18:463(A)(2).

The party “objecting to candidacy bears the burden of proving that the

candidate is disqualified.” Landiak v. Richmond, 05-758, pp. 6-7 (La. 3/24/05),

899 So.2d 535, 541. Further explaining the burden of proof in a case regarding the

qualification of a candidate, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Landiak, Id. at 542,

stated that:

the legal term “burden of proof” “denotes the duty of establishing by a
fair preponderance of the evidence the truth of the operative facts
upon which the issue at hand is made to turn by substantive law.”
Black‟s Law Dictionary (8th ed). Under Louisiana‟s civil law, the
“burden of proof” may shift back and forth between the parties as the
trial progresses. Therefore, when the burden of proof has been
specifically assigned to a particular party, that party must present
sufficient evidence to establish the facts necessary to convince the
trier of fact of the existence of the contested fact. Stated another way,
the party on which the burden of proof rests must establish a prima
facie case. If that party fails to carry his burden of proof, the opposing
party is not required to present any countervailing evidence. On the
other hand, once the party bearing the burden of proof has established
a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to
present sufficient evidence to overcome the other party‟s prima facie
case.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court stated as fact that:

Saunders was provided with a payment plan by the BOE in which to
pay the sum of $1500.00. She in fact paid $100.00 on the plan[,] but
there is still remaining outstanding the sum of $1400.00 for which she
was never provided a time frame for payment by the BOE of the
remaining balance due. Had such a time frame been provided to her,
Saunders testified that she would have been compliant therewith and
further testified that she is now and has always been willing to pay the
said $1400.00 delinquency. Saunders further testified that she was

6

never advised by the BOE that said payment plan had to be paid in
full prior to her qualifying and running for the office which she
presently occupies and would have made said payment upon being so
advised.

We find that the BOE carried its initial burden of proof by offering evidence

that Ms. Saunders was informed on several occasions that she had a balance owing,

that unpaid fines, fees, or penalties would adversely affect the ability to run for

public office, that the BOE would object to candidacy in future elections pursuant

to La.R.S. 18:491 and 18:492, and that the balance must be paid in full prior to

qualifying. Ms. Saunders‟ testimony also established that she received these letters

and was aware of their contents and was aware of the fact that the balance was due,

owing, and remained unpaid at the time she filed her notice of candidacy.

Thus, the burden then shifted to Ms. Saunders to submit “countervailing

evidence to overcome the plaintiff‟s proof.” Landiak, 899 So.2d at 546. Although,

the trial court indicates that there was a payment plan in place, the record is devoid

of any evidence or testimony to support such a finding. Therefore, we find that the

trial court was manifestly erroneous in concluding that there was a payment plan in

place that Ms. Saunders was unaware had to be paid in full.2 There is no conflict in

the evidence or testimony, and the evidence clearly shows that Ms. Saunders knew

that she owed money under the Code of Governmental Ethics at the time she filed

her notice of candidacy. Even though the trial court‟s reasons for judgment seem

to suggest that Ms. Saunders had a good faith belief that she did not have to pay

the whole amount in order to certify that she did not owe any late fees in her notice

of candidacy, we agree with the BOE that any confusion or lack of knowledge of

2
Although the trial court seems to suggest that Ms. Saunders was confused about
whether she had to pay the full amount due in order to be qualified, there is no evidence or
testimony to support this finding. The June 17, 2015 letter clearly advised that the fine must be
paid in full even if a payment plan was in place.

7

the law are irrelevant to the determination at issue herein. See State Board of

Ethics v. Garriga, 15-1800 (La. 10/9/15), ___ So.3d ___, and State Board of Ethics

v. Arnold, 15-1795 (La. 10/9/15), 176 So.3d 1029.3

Based on the evidence submitted, Ms. Saunders‟ certification that she did

“not owe any outstanding late fines, fees, or penalties pursuant to the Code of

Governmental Ethics” was false. Consequently, she is prohibited by law from

becoming a candidate for the Office of Alderman.

DECREE

For all of the foregoing reasons, the trial court‟s judgment finding Maureen

Robbins Saunders qualified as a candidate of the Office of Alderman, District 3,

City of Vidalia, Parish of Concordia (the Office of Alderman), conditioned upon

her payment of all outstanding late fees, fines, and penalties is reversed. We

render judgment in favor of the State of Louisiana Board of Ethics, declaring Ms.

Saunders ineligible as a candidate for the Office of Alderman, and she is hereby

disqualified.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

3
In Garriga, ___ So.3d ___ , the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the second circuit‟s
qualification of a candidate. Garriga requested a waiver and testified that he “assumed” the
matter was taken care of when he did so. The trial court and the second circuit concluded that
based upon its evaluation of Garriga‟s credibility that his certification that he owed nothing was
not false at the time he made it. The lower courts noted that Garriga had a reasonable belief that
he owed no late fee. Without giving reasons, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and
disqualified Garriga.

In Arnold, 176 So.3d 1029, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the second circuit‟s
qualification of a candidate where the second circuit found that he had no intent to make a false
certification about monies owed based on his stated subjective belief that the assessment was not
final. The BOE submitted proof that the late fee was in fact final. The Louisiana Supreme Court
disqualified Arnold.

8

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-1171

STATE OF LOUISIANA
BOARD OF ETHICS

VERSUS

MAUREEN ROBBINS SAUNDERS, AND
THE HON. CLYDE R. WEBBER, JR.,
CLERK OF COURT FOR CONCORDIA PARISH

Saunders, J., concurring.

This entire litigation was set into motion by the defendant’s failure to timely

file a 2013 Tier 3 Annual Personal Financial Disclosure Statement. The statute

requiring such a filing was passed in the recent years under the auspices of

transparency in government. This and other similar regulatory requirements are

often handled by clerical staff, accountants, or attorneys working for elected public

officials. These staff members are trained to handle ministerial matters of this type

and work these duties into their daily routine. Persons elected to some of the less

high profile offices in the state, such as alderman of smaller communities like

Vidalia, often have no clerical staff, accountants, or attorneys at their disposal and

the public officials are often paid little or no remuneration for their services. In

these circumstances, the requirements can be challenging and onerous and, in some

circumstances, a real hardship. Nevertheless, the Legislature has seen fit to impose

the same requirements on these officials as those of the more high profile category.

The imposition of a fine of $1500.00 for failure to file a disclosure report

might indeed be considered harsh in the case of a public official from a small

community serving in a position with little or no remuneration. Under these

circumstances, it is easy to argue that the proposed disposition by the district judge

to allow the candidate to run upon payment of the outstanding balance seems

1

equitable, fair, reasonable, and that it achieves the purposes mandated by the

Legislature. Under these circumstances, the passion that the law has for allowing

persons to seek elected office would seem to suggest that an affirmation of the trial

judge might be appropriate. See e.g. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics v. Wilson, 14-925

(La.App. 3 Cir. 9/9/14), 161 So.3d 785, writ denied, 14-1908 (La. 9/15/14), 148

So.3d 938 . This, however, is not the case. When the law is clear, the court shall

not ignore the letter of the law in looking for the spirit. La.Civ.Code art. 9; La.R.S.

1:4. Judicial restraint mandates that we follow the clear wording of the statutory

law and the jurisprudence of our supreme court. Under these circumstances, we

must reverse. Nevertheless, it is with great discomfort and reservation that I

concur in the result, noting that the greater purpose and greater equity of the law

may be undermined by an overly strict application of statutory law, which may

fairly be called draconian, and, if properly challenged, might well be found to be

unconstitutional. We may, at least, hope that the Legislature, in the foreseeable

future, will revisit this most awkward statutory mandate.

2