McKee v. Hayward
710 So. 2d 362, 1998 WL 166880 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court may only fashion an equitable remedy when no adequate remedy at law, such as a contempt proceeding, exists. While a court cannot authorize a search for property that a defendant admits to possessing, it may authorize a search for property whose whereabouts the defendant disclaims knowledge of, rendering a simple order to deliver ineffective.
Facts:
- Joan Renken McKee's great grandmother bequeathed two paintings and a dining table to McKee's mother, Helene Hayward Renken.
- McKee inherited this property from her mother.
- After a family move, the paintings and leaves for the dining table were moved to the Germania Plantation for convenience, where they came into the possession of McKee's uncle, Douglas S. Hayward, Sr.
- Douglas admitted he influenced his mother not to return the paintings because he wanted to keep them.
- The paintings are currently hanging in Douglas's home, and he is also in possession of the table leaves.
- A watch chain and fob belonging to McKee were last seen when Douglas put them in his pocket after showing them to McKee's dying mother in 1981.
- Douglas testified at trial that he did not know the current whereabouts of the watch chain and fob.
Procedural Posture:
- Numerous lawsuits involving members of the Hayward family were consolidated at the trial court level.
- The trial court issued a judgment in June 1995 and two supplemental judgments in September 1996 to resolve the various disputes.
- In one of its judgments, the trial court ordered Douglas S. Hayward, Sr. to deliver two paintings, table leaves, and a watch chain and fob to Joan Renken McKee.
- The trial court's order specified that if Douglas failed to deliver the items, McKee was authorized to search Germania Plantation for them, accompanied by a deputy sheriff for the watch chain and fob.
- Douglas S. Hayward, Sr. (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgments to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, with Joan Renken McKee as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit legal error by fashioning an equitable remedy, such as ordering a search of a party's property to enforce a judgment, when an adequate remedy at law exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Shortess, Judge
Yes, in part. A trial court commits legal error by fashioning an equitable remedy when a remedy at law is available; however, it does not abuse its discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy for an uncommon problem where a legal remedy would be ineffective. Regarding the paintings and table leaves, Douglas admitted possession. If he defies the court's judgment to return them, he can be held in contempt of court, which is an adequate remedy at law. Therefore, the trial court erred in fashioning the equitable remedy of authorizing a search. In contrast, for the watch chain and fob, Douglas disclaimed knowledge of their whereabouts. An order to deliver the items would be ineffective, and a contempt proceeding would be difficult if he maintains his ignorance. Because the items were last seen in his possession and he now denies knowledge of them, the trial court faced an 'uncommon problem that required an uncommon solution' and did not abuse its great discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundaries of a trial court's authority to grant equitable relief. It reinforces the fundamental legal principle that equity is a remedy of last resort, available only when legal remedies are inadequate to provide justice. The court's split holding provides a practical guide for future cases involving the return of property: if a defendant admits possession, contempt of court is the proper enforcement mechanism; however, if a defendant disclaims knowledge, trial courts have greater discretion to craft creative equitable solutions. This distinction protects parties from invasive remedies like property searches when traditional legal tools are sufficient, while still allowing courts to address situations where a party's denial of knowledge could thwart a judgment.
