Title Research Corp. v. Rausch

• Decision Date: 02 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-C-1683,83-C-1683
• Citation: 450 So.2d 933
• Parties: TITLE RESEARCH CORPORATION et al. v. Lucy Reid RAUSCH, Clerk of Court, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 933

450 So.2d 933

TITLE RESEARCH CORPORATION et al. v. Lucy Reid RAUSCH, Clerk of Court, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.

No. 83-C-1683.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 2, 1984.

Robert C. Brandt, Williams & Brandt, Slidell, La., George R. Blue, Sr., Blue, Williams & Buckley, Metairie, for plaintiff-applicant.

Thomas S. Derveloy, Jr., Jones, Fussell, Derveloy & Schoen, Covington, for defendant-appellee.

DIXON, Chief Justice.

Pursuant to an agreement, Title Research Corporation and Karl Heeter, plaintiffs, were allowed to microfilm the newly filed, original and unbound conveyance and mortgage records of St. Tammany Parish. After nine months, the agreement with the Clerk of Court, Lucy Reid Rausch, defendant, broke down. As a result, plaintiffs filed this suit, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to allow them to microfilm the original, unbound conveyance and mortgage records which are in the clerk's custody. The trial court ruled that plaintiffs did not have the asserted right of access to the records. The court of appeal affirmed (433 So.2d 1105 (La.App.1983)). Writs were granted, 440 So.2d 146 (La.1983), to determine the scope of the rights guaranteed to members of the public under the public records laws of the state. We reverse the decision of the court of appeal.

The parties entered into a stipulation concerning the facts; there is no factual dispute.

Title Research Corporation is a Louisiana corporation engaged in the business of investigating titles to immovable property; Karl Heeter is its president. Lucy Rausch is the Clerk of Court for St. Tammany Parish, and, as such, the recorder of the conveyance and mortgage records of the parish.

To facilitate its investigations, Title Research sought to microfilm all of the recently filed conveyance and mortgage records for the parish. In 1979 Mr. Heeter approached the clerk, requesting permission to microfilm the records. To this request, the clerk suggested that Title Research obtain copies of the microfilm which the clerk's office had already prepared. Title Research thereafter purchased nearly two thousand dollars worth of the microfilm from Southern Microfilm. The purchased microfilm, however, did not satisfy Title Research's needs. In March, 1980, Mr. Heeter met with the clerk to discuss the possibility of setting up his own microfilm camera in the clerk's office, in order to reproduce the original, unbound records. At the clerk's suggestion, Mr. Heeter made a written request to begin his microfilming. By return letter, the clerk denied Mr. Heeter's request, stating that her office did not have sufficient room to accommodate the microfilm machine, even though the machine was only two by three feet, just larger than a typewriter. In February, 1981, Mr. Heeter confirmed by letter a telephone conversation he had with the clerk's attorney. He repeated his request to microfilm the records, and stated that the microfilming could be done in one session per week, and after normal business hours. The parties met again, and, after some more correspondence, entered into a written agreement.

According to the agreement, Title Research was allowed to bring its microfilm equipment to the courthouse once per week, from 5:00 until 7:30 p.m. Title Research would be permitted to copy only those original conveyance and mortgage records which already had been microfilmed and indexed by the clerk's staff, but which had not yet been bound permanently. The microfilming was to be supervised by a member of the clerk's staff, whose salary of twenty-five dollars per session would be paid by Title Research, four weeks salary payable in advance. In return, Title Research would furnish a copy of the microfilm to the clerk, charging the clerk only for the costs of reproduction. Additionally, Title Research was required to execute an indemnity agreement which would hold the clerk harmless in connection with any cause of action which might arise as a result of Title Research's use of its microfilm.

Title Research began its microfilming immediately after the agreement had been reached. In August, 1981, Mrs. Rausch expressed some concern over finding some of her original, unbound records out of order. To this concern, Title Research responded in writing that it returned the records in better condition than they had been received. In the same month, some of the original documents were bound before Title Research had an opportunity to microfilm them. A letter was sent to the clerk by Title Research asking that it be notified in advance of any planned pickups by the binder. Title Research also requested that the twenty-five dollar per session fee be dropped. Mrs. Rausch, through her attorney, declined to drop the fee. Again, in November, a large group of records were bound before Title Research had an opportunity to microfilm them.

To fill the gaps left by the unannounced bindings, Title Research leased a special microfilm machine which would allow it to copy the permanently bound volumes of the records. On December 2, 1981, at 9:30 a.m., Mr. Heeter went to the courthouse with the special equipment. The clerk and her attorney objected to Mr. Heeter, saying that it was not agreed that Title Research would be allowed to microfilm during normal business hours. On that same day, the clerk filed suit for an injunction against Title Research, seeking to have the company enjoined from copying any more of the records. By consent of the parties, the proceedings were continued until January, 1982. The clerk also converted the action from an injunction proceeding to an ordinary proceeding.

During the interim, Title Research was allowed to continue its filming operations, and the parties negotiated in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of their disagreements. As a result of the meetings, Title Research submitted a proposal which suggested various alternate locations for the camera, as well as offering to purchase some of the construction material needed to fulfill some of the suggestions. On January 22, 1982, the proposal was rejected by the clerk, and the clerk, further, formally notified Title Research, in writing, that it no longer would be permitted to microfilm the original, unbound records. In response to the prohibition, by letter dated January 26, 1982, Title Research's counsel made formal demand on the clerk to provide copying access to specified records. The clerk responded that the records would be available for inspection only, and that plain paper copies of the records could be purchased from the clerk at the rate of fifty cents per page. Title Research informed the clerk that the plain paper copies would not satisfy its needs, and that it was its opinion that the clerk's response did not conform with the public records law. On February 9, 1982, Title Research and its president, individually, filed answers and reconventional demands to the clerk's lawsuit, and also filed the present action for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to C.C.P. 251; R.S. 44:35(A), ordering the clerk to provide it with free access to the unbound original records, as requested, and that it be provided with reasonable comfort and facility to do its business.

It was stipulated further that the clerk normally allows other members of the public to maintain permanent or semipermanent equipment in the courthouse, such as telephones and typewriters, and that any member of the public, whether commercial enterprise or individual, is allowed access to the unbound original documents.

The two cases were consolidated, and trial was held in March, 1982. Based on the stipulated facts, and some short testimony which added only that one piece of paper, out of all those which had been copied, had been crumpled, but not destroyed, by the microfilm machine. Otherwise, the testimony merely iterated the facts contained in the stipulation. The trial court rendered its judgment in favor of the clerk, and denied plaintiffs' request for mandamus. In its reasons for judgment, the trial judge stated that the public records laws, La. Const. art. 12, § 3; R.S. 44:31, allow members of the public to examine and reproduce the public records in a reasonable manner, that a member of the public is not given the right to copy all of the public records, and that there is no right which guarantees access to the records for the purpose of deriving economic profit. Plaintiffs took a devolutive appeal to, and sought writs from, the court of appeal. The court denied the writs, stating that the proper remedy was...