Jessie Bellard v. Robert Lewis, III

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-537

JESSIE BELLARD

VERSUS

RICHARD LEWIS, III

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 23-C-01875-A
HONORABLE JOHN DAMIAN TRAHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE AD HOC

**********

JONATHAN W. PERRY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Ledricka J.
Thierry, Judges.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Antonio Birotte
Attorney at Law
110 West Bellevue Street
Opelousas, LA 70570
(337) 407-5030
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Richard Lewis, III

Christopher Ludeau
Ludeau Law, LLC
516 West Magnolia Street
Ville Platte, LA 70586
(337) 363-2388
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE:
Jessie Bellard

PERRY, Judge.

This appeal concerns a petition challenging the candidacy of a party who has

qualified to run for the office of St. Landry Parish President. Finding a procedural

error, more fully detailed in this opinion, we vacate the judgment of the trial court

and remand the matter for a trial with all due haste.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jessie Bellard, a qualified elector of St. Landry Parish, filed a Petition

Objecting to Candidacy challenging the candidacy of Richard Lewis, III, who

qualified to run for St. Landry Parish President for the October 14, 2023 primary

election. Mr. Bellard’s petition also named Charles Jagneaux, the clerk of court for

St. Landry Parish as a defendant, as required by La.R.S. 18:1402(A)(2). Mr. Bellard

is the current St. Landry Parish President and the only other candidate to qualify for

that elected position. Mr. Bellard’s challenge alleges that Mr. Lewis falsely certified

on his qualifying form that he filed federal and state income tax returns for the five

years preceding his qualification. With leave of court, Mr. Bellard hired a private

process server to effect service on Mr. Lewis.

The trial court1 scheduled a hearing for August 18, 2023. Mr. Lewis did not

attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. At the hearing, Mr. Bellard

introduced a copy of a news article from KLFY dated August 15, 2023, about Mr.

Bellard’s challenge to Mr. Lewis’s candidacy that quotes Mr. Lewis stating “My

taxes are current; my taxes have been filed. It’s just another way to stop my

campaign. Mr. Bellard never did want me in the race, I’m going to expose

everything I know that’s being done wrong.”

1
The four judges of the Twenty-Seventh Judicial District recused themselves sua sponte.
Judge John Trahan was appointed by the supreme court to hear this matter.

Mr. Bellard testified that he submitted a public records request to the

Louisiana Department of Revenue seeking information on whether Mr. Lewis filed

state income tax returns for the previous five years. He identified the document he

received in response to that public records request which indicated Mr. Lewis had

not filed state income tax returns for 2021 and 2022, and that document was entered

into evidence.

Mr. Jagneaux testified that he is the clerk of court for St. Landry Parish. He

identified the Qualifying Form of Mr. Lewis, which included certifications that he

met the qualifications of the office for which he was qualifying, that he had filed his

federal and state income tax returns for the previous five years, and that the

information contained in the document was true and correct. He identified Mr.

Lewis’s signature on the form. The Qualifying Form was admitted into evidence.

Ms. Christina Junker, an attorney with the Policy Services Division for the

Louisiana Department of Revenue, was also called to testify. She explained how the

Department of Revenue responds to public records requests for state income tax

returns. She testified that the department received a request for tax filing information

for Richard Lewis, III, which included the date of birth and address of Mr. Lewis.

She confirmed that the document previously identified by Mr. Bellard indicating that

the department had no record of the filing of state income tax returns from Mr. Lewis

for 2021 and 2022 was the document forwarded from her office.

Candace Roberts, the Human Resources Director for St. Landry Parish

Government, testified that she produced W-2s for Mr. Lewis for 2021 and 2022 in

response to a subpoena. She identified the documents. She also confirmed that the

address on the W-2s was the same address as Mr. Lewis’s address on the notice of

candidacy forms.

2

Kirk Menard, the private process server hired to effect service on Mr. Lewis,

also testified. He testified that he was hired to serve Mr. Lewis through the clerk of

court and personally. While he was able to serve Mr. Lewis through the clerk of

court, he was not able to serve Mr. Lewis personally. He attempted to serve him at

his residence on August 17, 2023. He attempted to contact him by telephone call

and text message. He knocked on the door of Mr. Lewis’s home and there was no

answer. He waited at the home from 12:15 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Menard tried

knocking on the door again after a vehicle arrived at the home, but no one answered.

He identified pictures of Mr. Lewis’s home that he took as he waited and screenshots

of text messages he sent to Mr. Lewis, which were introduced into the record. On

the morning of the trial, he attempted to serve Mr. Lewis at his place of employment

in Carencro, but the person he spoke to told him Mr. Lewis was not there.

Finally, Joey Lynn Thibodeaux, deputy clerk of court for St. Landry Parish,

testified that she posted the petition objecting to candidacy filed by Mr. Bellard on

three doors of the clerk’s office.

The trial court found that Mr. Lewis was properly served with the petition

through the clerk of court. The trial court further found that Mr. Bellard proved that

Mr. Lewis did not file income taxes for 2021 and 2022. The trial court found that

Mr. Lewis’s failure to file his income tax returns for those years disqualified him as

a candidate for St. Landry Parish President. He signed a judgment in open court.

Because the judgment lacked proper decretal language, this court ordered the trial

court to file an amended judgment on August 22, 2023. The amended judgment was

filed by the trial court on August 22, 2023.

Mr. Lewis now appeals.

3

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Mr. Lewis asserts two assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s petition without appointing an
attorney at law to represent defendant by instanter appointment made prior to
the commencement of trial.

2. The trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s petition because, not only did
Charles Jagneaux, in his capacity as St. Landry Parish Clerk of Court and
registered agent on behalf defendant, fail to comply with notification
requisites of law, but plaintiff also failed to offer into evidence any proof of
such compliance during the trial.

APPLICABLE LAW

“By filing notice of candidacy a candidate appoints the clerk of court for each

parish in which he is to be voted on as his agent for service of process in any action

objecting to his candidacy[.]” La.R.S. 18:1407. Further, La.R.S. 18:1408 sets forth

the following requirements for service of process in an election suit:

A. If service of process is to be made on the appointed agent, as
authorized by R.S. 18:1407, such service shall be made by serving
citation on this agent, but at the same time that service is made on
the appointed agent, a diligent effort shall be made to make personal
service on the defendant at his domiciliary address as shown on his
notice of candidacy.

B. When service is made on the appointed agent, he shall immediately
notify the defendant by telephone and send notice thereof, together
with a copy of the citation, by electronic mail to the address listed
on his notice of candidacy. If the defendant did not list an electronic
mail address on his notice of candidacy, the appointed agent shall
mail a copy of the citation to the defendant at his domiciliary
address as listed on his notice of candidacy.

C. Service of process on and citation of the appointed agent, together
with the posting of the petition as provided in R.S. 18:1406, shall
be sufficient service to give the trial court jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.

In Russo v. Burns, 14-952 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/9/14), 150 So.3d 67, the fourth circuit

found that the defendant, a candidate for Orleans Parish District Attorney, was

properly served to give the court personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The

4

evidence showed that the petition was served on the Criminal District Court Clerk,

before whom the defendant qualified as a candidate, as well as the Civil District

Court Clerk. The plaintiff also retained a private process server who attempted to

personally serve the defendant but was unable to complete service. Finally, the

petition was posted at the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:1409(A)(2) states:

If the defendant does not appear on the date set for the trial, either
in person or through counsel, the court shall appoint an attorney at law
to represent him by instanter appointment made prior to the
commencement of the trial. In a case where a court appointment of an
attorney to represent the defendant is made, the proceedings shall be
conducted contradictorily against the court-appointed attorney.

DISCUSSION

In his first assignment of error, Mr. Lewis argues that the trial court should

have appointed an attorney as curator ad hoc to represent his interests when neither

he nor an attorney representing him appeared at the trial of this matter, pursuant to

La.R.S. 18:1409(A)(2). The statute clearly requires the court to make such an

instanter appointment. In brief to this court, Mr. Bellard does not refute this legal

requirement.

We have found only two cases in the jurisprudence which address the

requirement of an attorney to represent the interests of a person whose candidacy for

elected office is challenged. This court has found that if a defendant appears for a

trial in a suit objecting to his candidacy, he is not entitled to have an attorney

appointed to represent him. Cook v. Skipper, 99-1448 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/27/99),

749 So.2d 6, writ denied, 99-2827 (La. 9/30/99), 745 So.2d 601. The fourth circuit,

sitting en banc, found that the trial court erred in its appointment of a curator ad hoc

to represent the interests of a candidate who had qualified for election to the House

of Representatives:
5

[W]e find that the trial court's appointment of Ferdinand Valteau as
curator ad hoc was flawed. When Alcorn did not appear at the hour
appointed for hearing, the court was mandated by LSA–R.S. 18:1409
A to appoint an attorney. However, Attorney Valteau was not appointed
until after the trial had begun and one witness had already testified and
been discharged. Alcorn did not receive the minimal representation to
which he was entitled under the statutory law.

Darnell v. Alcorn, 99-2405, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/24/99), 757 So.2d 716, 723, writ

denied, 99-2795 (La. 9/28/99), 747 So.2d 1130.

We find the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial of this matter in the

absence of Mr. Lewis, his attorney, or an attorney appointed by the court as a curator.

We find the proper disposition is to vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand

for a hearing with all due haste.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons assigned herein, the judgment of the trial court is vacated.

This matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to hold a new trial with

all due haste.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

6