Thompson v. Celestain
2006 La. App. LEXIS 1604, 2006 WL 2088408, 936 So. 2d 219 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When property owned in indivision by unmarried individuals cannot be physically divided, a court must order a partition by licitation (public auction) unless the co-owners reach a definite and certain agreement for a private sale. A court is not authorized to compel one co-owner to transfer their interest in the property to the other.
Facts:
- In January 2001, Leona Thompson and Alfred L. Celestain, Sr., an unmarried couple, purchased a house together in New Orleans.
- Thompson made a $1,000 good faith deposit and a $26,462.28 down payment for the house.
- Celestain claimed he also contributed $12,000 toward the purchase price.
- After the relationship ended, Thompson moved out of the residence in August 2002.
- While they lived together, Thompson paid for the installation of new windows costing $4,279.00 and claimed to have made several mortgage payments.
- After Thompson moved out, Celestain remained in the house and made numerous mortgage payments and paid for various repairs and improvements, including a hot tub.
Procedural Posture:
- Leona Thompson filed a petition to partition immovable property against Alfred L. Celestain, Sr. in the trial court.
- A hearing was conducted where both parties testified regarding their financial contributions to the property.
- The trial court issued a judgment that awarded monetary credits to both parties, found Thompson was indebted to Celestain, and ordered Thompson's undivided interest in the property to be transferred to Celestain.
- Thompson, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.
- Celestain is the appellee in the appeal.
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 Louisiana law permit a trial court, in a partition action between unmarried co-owners of indivisible property, to order one co-owner to transfer their interest to the other instead of ordering a partition by licitation (public sale)?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobias, Jr., J.
No. Louisiana law does not permit a trial court to order one co-owner to transfer their interest to another in a partition action; instead, if the property is not divisible in kind, the court must order a partition by licitation. The court reasoned that under La. C.C. art. 807, a person cannot be compelled to own property in indivision with another. If that property, such as a house, is not divisible in kind, La. C.C. art. 811 mandates that it must be partitioned by licitation and sold at public auction. The only exception is if the parties make a 'definite and certain' agreement for a private sale, which was not evidenced here. The trial court improperly applied the law for partitioning community property between married couples and erred by prematurely calculating reimbursements before the property was sold and proceeds were available for division.
Concurring - Murray, J.
Yes, the trial court's judgment must be vacated. The trial court erred by ordering a transfer of property not authorized by law. This concurrence emphasizes that while the ultimate judgment was legally incorrect and premature, the appellate court did not rule that the trial court's specific factual findings regarding the parties' financial contributions were manifestly erroneous. Therefore, on remand, the trial court may reaffirm its previous factual findings when properly proceeding with the partition and distributing the sale proceeds.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the mandatory nature of partition by licitation for indivisible property co-owned by unmarried individuals under Louisiana's Civil Code. It strictly limits judicial discretion, preventing courts from fashioning equitable remedies like a forced buyout that are not explicitly provided for in the code for this type of co-ownership. The case draws a sharp distinction between the rules for partitioning property held in indivision by non-spouses and the more flexible rules for dividing community property in a divorce. This holding solidifies the principle that a public sale is the default and required remedy unless the parties themselves negotiate a clear and definite private sale agreement.
