Gertler v. City of New Orleans
| Decision Date | 01 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2003-CA-2131.,2003-CA-2131. |
| Citation | 881 So.2d 792 |
| Parties | Meyer H. GERTLER and Marcia Gertler v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, Division D-16, No. 2002-11855, Lloyd J. Medley, J M.H. Gertler, Gertler, Gertler, Vincent & Plotkin, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Sherry S. Landry, Acting City Attorney of Orleans Parish, Evelyn F. Pugh, Chief Deputy City Attorney of Orleans Parish, Joyce G. Joseph, Deputy City Attorney of Orleans Parish, Thomas A. Robichaux, Assistant City Attorney of Orleans Parish, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
(Court composed of Judge JAMES F. McKAY III, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS Jr.).
The City of New Orleans (City), Defendant/Appellant, appeals the judgment of the trial court granting Meyer H. and Marcia Gertler's (Gertlers), Plaintiff/Appellee's, motion for summary judgment. This appeal is from a suit filed by the Gertlers for recovery of ad valorem taxes paid under protest pursuant to La. R.S. 47:2110 to the City for the year beginning on January 1, 2002, and ending on December 31, 2002.
The principal issues on appeal are (1) whether the leasehold improvements taxed by the City are owned by the City or the Gertlers and (2) whether the lease contract provides that the plaintiffs pay ad valorem taxes regardless of whether they owned the improvements. In granting the motion for summary judgment for the plaintiffs, the trial court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City was the owner of the leasehold improvements and as to the meaning of the lease language. We disagree and reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On May 30, 1996, the Gertlers leased Boathouse # 11, which is waterfront and underwater property in the New Orleans Municipal Yacht Harbor and owned by the City. The lease was set to expire on December 31, 2004. On November 15, 2001, the Gertlers signed a new lease for Boathouse # 11, which took effect on January 1, 2002, and is set to expire on December 31, 2030.1
The City assessed ad valorem taxes for leasehold improvements to Boathouse # 11 for the period between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002. The ad valorem taxes were in the amount of $1699.70 in taxes and an additional $850.47 in penalties and charges. On July 23, 2002, the Gertlers paid the taxes under protest pursuant to La R.S. 47:2110 and shortly thereafter filed suit.
The Gertlers filed a motion for summary judgment, and the City filed an opposition and competing motion for summary judgment. Both motions were heard on September 12, 2003. The trial court denied the City's motion and granted the Gertlers' motion. The trial court assessed that there were two pertinent questions (1) Who owned the improvements that were taxed? and (2) Did the lease contract provide that the plaintiffs pay the tax regardless of whether they owned the improvements? The lower court found that:
(1) The City, in its response to plaintiff's first request for defendant's admission of fact, judicially admitted that it owned the improvements.
(2) The lease entered into between the parties limits the lessee's obligation to pay taxes to the improvements owned by the lessee, and any ambiguity in the contract should favor the lessee.
The trial court ordered that the City reimburse the Gertlers the 2002 ad valorem taxes, interest and penalties in the full amount of $2,550.17, paid under protest, and the City brought this suspensive appeal.
Summary judgments are reviewed de novo on appeal whereby the appellate court asks the same questions as does the trial court in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Napoleon v. ABC Ins. Co., 2003-1602, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/07/04), 871 So.2d 658, 660 (quoting Marcades v. Cleanerama, Inc., 2002-0357, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/25/02), 831 So.2d 288, 289.). A motion for summary judgment will be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." La. C.C.P. art. 966(B). This article was amended in 1996 to provide that La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). In 1997, the article was further amended to specifically alter the burden of proof in summary judgment proceedings as follows: The burden of proof remains with the movant. Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact." La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). Jefferson v. Cooper/T. Smith Corp., 2002-2136, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4 Cir.10/1/03), 858 So.2d 691, 692 (quoting Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257, p. 7 (La.2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226, 230-31.).
Further, despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor. Jefferson, 2002-2136 at p. 5, 858 So.2d at 693-94 (quoting Knowles v. McCright's Pharmacy, Inc., 34,559 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/4/01), 785 So.2d 101).
The interpretation of a contract "is the determination of the common intent of the parties." La. C.C. art. 2045. When a contract is not ambiguous or does not lead to absurd consequences, it will be enforced as written and its interpretation is a question of law for a court to decide. Thus, when the parties agree that a valid contract binds them and that the material facts involved in the dispute are not contested, the contract's application to a case is a matter of law and summary judgment is appropriate. Am. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Myles, 00-2457, p. 8 (La.4/25/01), 783 So.2d 1282, 1286 (citations omitted).
Thus, as a threshold question, this Court must determine whether or not the contract is ambiguous. The City argues that the trial court did not correctly interpret the contractual clause entitled "TAXES" in the new lease contract. The clause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. & the Adm'rs of the Tulane Educ. Fund v. Cytogel Pharma, LLC
...Investors Syndicate of Am., Inc. v. City of Indian Rocks Beach, 434 F.2d 871, 877-78 (5th Cir.1970); Gertler v. City of New Orleans, 2003-2131 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/04), 881 So. 2d 792, 796, writ denied, 2004-2649 (La. 1/7/05), 891 So. 2d 687). 85. In the instant motion and opposition, the p......
-
Sarradet v. Riverbend Envtl. Servs., LLC
...(5th Cir. 1970) (finding that dismissal on the pleadings was error when the contract at issue was ambiguous); Gertler v. City of New Orleans, 881 So.2d 792, 796 (La.Ct.App. 2004) ('If the language of [a contract] is ambiguous or susceptible to multiple interpretations, the intent of the par......
-
Del. Valley Fish Co. v. 3South LLC
... ... improper,” Id. (citing Investors Syndicate ... of Am., Inc. v. City of Indian Rocks Beach , 434 F.2d ... 871, 877-78 (5th Cir. 1970) (finding that dismissal on he ... pleadings was error when the contract at issue was ... ambiguous); Gertler v. City of New Orleans , ... 2003-2131 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/1/04), 881 So.2d 792, 796 ... ...
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Superior Labor Servs., Inc.
...Cir. 1970) (finding that dismissal on the pleadings was error when the contract at issue was ambiguous); Gertler v. City of New Orleans, 881 So. 2d 792, 796 (La. Ct. App. 2004) ("If the language of [a contract] is ambiguous or susceptible to multiple interpretations, the intent of the parti......