text:
    Joan BRUNSON, et al. v. CROWN BRAKE, LLC, et al.
    18-994
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    June 19, 2019
   George Carnal Gaiennie, III, Gaiennie Law Firm, L.L.C., 201 Johnston Street - Suite 101 B, Alexandria, LA 71301, Telephone: (318) 704-5784, COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Crown Brake, LLC

Cliffe Edward Laborde, III, Mahtook & LaFleur, 1000 Chase Tower, 600 Jefferson Street, Lafayette, LA 70501, Telephone: (337) 266-2189, COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Crown Brake, LLC

Stacy Christopher Auzenne, Auzenne Law Firm, L.L.C., P. O. Box 11817, Alexandria, LA 71315-1817, Telephone: (318) 880-0087, COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant - Cory Close

Hansel Mark Harlan, Harlan Law Firm, 9100 Bluebonnet Centre Boulevard, #102, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Telephone: (225) 442-1056, COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiffs/Appellants - Joan Brunson and Dana Brunson

Barbara Bell Melton, Faircloth Melton, LLC, 105 Yorktown Drive, Alexandria, LA 71303, Telephone: (318) 619-7755, COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiffs/Appellants - Joan Brunson and Dana Brunson

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Shannon J. Gremillion, and John E. Conery, Judges.

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

Joan and Dana Brunson (the Brunsons) sought a declaratory judgment in response to allegations asserted by Crown Brake, LLC (Crown Brake) that a fifty-foot-wide predial servitude, running through the middle of the Brunsons' property in favor of Crown Brake's property, was created in a 2008 Act of Exchange. In response, Crown Brake filed a reconventional demand seeking confirmation of the existence of the predial servitude. Shortly thereafter, the Brunsons amended their petition, joining Cory Close (Close) to the litigation as a possible party needed for just adjudication, as a landowner whose property could be affected by the alleged predial servitude. After hearing the merits, the trial court found that the Crown Brake property, as the dominant estate, did have servitudes of passage created by the 2008 Act of Exchange across both the Brunson property and the Close property.

Reviewing the record in accordance with our well-established property law and public records doctrine, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant judgment declaring that the 2008 Act of Exchange, as recorded, did not create a servitude of passage in favor of the Crown Brake property over either the Brunson property or the Close property.

I.

ISSUES

The Brunsons present the following issues for review:

(1) whether a vague and ambiguous act can create a predial servitude;
(2) whether, when there is a conflict between a legal description and a plat in an act, the legal description or the plat controls;
(3) whether parol evidence is admissible to resolve ambiguity and reform an act purporting to create a predial servitude; and,
(4) whether the law can find in favor of a party who claims that a vague and ambiguous act creates a predial servitude but fails to introduce any parol evidence as to the intent of the parties.

In his appeal, Mr. Close raises the following assignments of error:

(1) [T]he Honorable Trial Court committed legal error in considering parol evidence outside the four corners of the 2008 Act of Exchange, the 2014 CLOSE cash sales from Tarver and GALLOWAY , and the 2014 CLOSE Servitude of Passage.
(2) [T]he Honorable Trial Court committed legal error when it found a 50' predial servitude and/or Servitude of Passage extending south of Taylor Oaks Boulevard through CLOSE 's property when said servitude was not set out in any legal specificity by dimensions, the placement of such a servitude, its length, width, or exact location, all as contrary to the Louisiana Civil Code and Louisiana Property law.
(3) [T]he Honorable Trial Court committed legal error when it ignored and/or disregarded the intent of both CLOSE and GALLOWAY to establish a 12' predial servitude/Servitude of Passage on May 28, 2014, since no such 50' servitude existed south of Taylor Oaks Boulevard through CLOSE 's property extending to GALLOWAY 's 190 acre tract.
(4) [S]ince no one has ever used the alleged 50' Predial Servitude across CLOSE 's property in ten (10)
years, that servitude has prescribed.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 17, 2008, Ballina Farms, Inc. (Ballina) and Frances Galloway Hargis (Galloway) perfected an exchange of property whereby Ballina transferred to Ms. Galloway all of its interest in and to 190.02 acres of land, along with sixty thousand dollars, in exchange for all of Ms. Galloway's interest in and to her stock in Ballina. The 190.02 acre-tract commenced at the southwest corner of Lot 213 of Tennyson Oaks Subdivision, in Alexandria, Louisiana. Exhibit A, which was attached to the 2008 Act of Exchange, contained a metes and bounds legal description of the 190.02-acre tract, as well as the following pertinent language:

IN ADDITION, right of way and utility servitudes are hereby extended from Audubon Oaks and Taylor Oaks to the hereinabove described tract as follows:
The servitude from Audubon to the tract is defined as an extension of the right of way lines of Audubon as recorded in the official plat of Tennyson Oaks in Plat Books of the Clerk of Court of Rapides Parish Louisiana to the northerly line of the surveyed tract as shown on the attached plat.
The servitude from Taylor Oaks to the tract is defined as an extension of the right of way lines of Taylor Oaks as recorded on the official plat of Tennyson Oaks in the Plat Book of the Clerk of Court of Rapides Parish Louisiana to the northerly line of the surveyed tract as shown on the attached plat.
Said tract and servitudes are shown on plat of survey by Frank L. Willis, PE, PLS, dated November 18, 2008, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

While the 2008 Act of Exchange and its Exhibit A were recorded in the public conveyance records of Rapides Parish, the plat attached to and recorded with Exhibit A was dated December 9, 2008. The November 18, 2008 plat was not attached, nor was it recorded. Moreover, the attached and recorded December 9, 2008 plat did not contain any verbiage as to the alleged servitudes alluded to above.

By act of cash sale, dated June 5, 2011, Ballina transferred to William and Shirrea Tarver (the Tarvers) its ownership in 2.89 acres beginning at the southeast border of the Tennyson Oak Subdivision and extending south from Taylor Oaks Boulevard. The Tarvers then sold their tract to Mr. Close, by act of cash sale, on May 20, 2014. Eight days later, on May 28, 2014, Mr. Close purchased from Ms. Galloway, by act of cash sale, 5.87 acres adjacent to the 2.89-acre tract he acquired from the Tarvers. That same day, Ms. Galloway secured a twelve-foot-wide predial "Servitude of Passage" in favor of her 190.02-acre tract from Mr. Close, across the east edge of his property. With the purchase of the 2.89-acre and 5.87-acre tracts, Mr. Close owned the contiguous acreage at the southern border of Tennyson Oaks Subdivision, commencing from the end of Taylor Oaks Boulevard and extending to Ms. Galloway's 190.02 acre-tract.

On March 1, 2017, the Brunsons purchased from Ballina, by act of cash sale, a 6.1-acre tract of land, located south of Audubon Oaks Boulevard and adjacent to Mr. Close's property, along the southern border of Tennyson Oaks Subdivision. The Brunson property, like the Close property, abutted Ms. Galloway's 190.02-acre tract. On July 11, 2017, the Brunsons began construction of their home with an estimated completion date of July 1, 2018, and approximate value of $1.5 million.

Crown Brake then purchased from Ms. Galloway her 190.02 acre-tract of land, by act of cash sale, dated September 29, 2017. Thereafter, Crown Brake claimed to have a fifty-foot-wide predial servitude of passage in favor of the 190.02-acre tract, beginning at the south end of Audubon Oaks Boulevard and extending directly through the middle of the Brunsons' partially constructed home. As the origin of its predial servitude, Crown Brake cited the 2008 Act of Exchange of property between Ballina and Ms. Galloway. Specifically, Crown Brake referred to the language contained in Exhibit A recited above. Along with its alleged servitude, Crown Brake also demanded that the Brunsons cease and desist construction of their home.

In response, the Brunsons filed their petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, seeking a declaration that Crown Brake's alleged predial servitude across the middle of their property did not exist. Crown Brake, in conjunction with its answer, filed a reconventional demand against the Brunsons, seeking recognition that its predial servitude was valid. In their first supplemental and amending petition, the Brunsons sought to add Mr. Close as a third-party defendant, arguing that the declaration of rights regarding Crown Brake's predial servitude could not be determined without adding Mr. Close, as the owner of the property extending south of Taylor Oaks Boulevard and abutting the 190.02-acre tract.

The trial court heard testimony from various witnesses and allowed evidence to be admitted outside of and along with the 2008 Act of Exchange and the five acts of cash sale conveying the properties at issue, which were all recorded in the public conveyance records of Rapides Parish, Louisiana. The trial court ruled and submitted written reasons, finding that two separate predial servitudes or rights of passage, the first extending south from Audubon Oaks Boulevard (Brunson property) and the second extending south from Taylor Oaks Boulevard (Close property), existed in favor of Ms. Galloway and her successor-in-title, Crown Brake. The court held that it was bound to give legal effect to all written contracts according to the true intent of the parties and found that the creation of the servitudes was the intent of both Ballino and Ms. Galloway in the 2008 Act of Exchange. In its subsequently signed judgment, dated June 21, 2018, the trial court also ordered "that the Injunction against Crown Brake, LLC, preventing entry onto or passage over the property owned by the Brunsons, entered by the Court on December 11, 2017, shall remain in full force and effect pending further Order by this Court[.]"

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An appellate court reviews the factual findings of a trial court under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review. Rosell v. ESCO , 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). The trial court's legal conclusions on questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. City of Bossier City v. Vernon , 12-78 (La. 10/16/12), 100 So.3d 301.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Louisiana Civil Code Article 646 defines a predial servitude as "a charge on a servient estate for the benefit of a dominant estate." As real rights burdening immovables, "[p]redial servitudes are established by all acts by which immovables may be transferred." La.Civ.Code art. 722. "The use and extent of such servitudes are regulated by the title by which they are created." La.Civ.Code art. 697.

Owners have the right to establish on their estate, or to acquire for the benefit of their estate, such predial servitudes as they deem proper. This freedom, however, is tempered by rules of public policy enacted in the general interest. C.C. art. 11. Apart from general limitations, the creation of predial servitudes by juridical act is subject to special rules that are largely insusceptible of modification by agreement. These rules, limiting contractual and testamentary freedom, are designed to effect a balance between individual demands for the recognition of modifications of property rights to suit individual needs and social demands for the preservation of a relatively simple system of unencumbered property. See Yiannopoulos, Real Rights: Limits of Contractual and Testamentary Freedom, 30 La.L.Rev. 44 (1969).

La.Civ.Code art. 697, Revision Comments-1977, comment (b) (West 2018).

"Doubt as to the existence, extent, or manner of exercise of a predial servitude shall be resolved in favor of the servient estate." La.Civ.Code art. 730. Note,

[i]t is a cardinal rule of interpretation that, in case of doubt, instruments purporting to establish predial servitudes are always interpreted in favor of the owner of the property to be affected. The rule incorporates into Louisiana law the civilian principle that any doubt as to the free use of immovable property must be resolved in favorem libertatis . See Domat, Les lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel, 1 Oeuvres de Domat 329 (ed. Remy 1828); 2 Toullier, Droit civil français 192 (1833). The Louisiana Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that "servitudes are restraints on the free disposal and use of property, and are not, on that account, entitled to be viewed with favor by the law." Parish v. Municipality No. 2, 8 La.Ann. 145, 147 (1853), cited with approval in Buras Ice Factory, Inc. v. Department of Highways, 235 La. 158, 103 So.2d 74 (1958). See also McGuffy v. Weil, 240 La. 758, 767, 125 So.2d 154, 158 (1960) : "any doubt as to the interpretation of a servitude encumbering property must be resolved in favor of the property owner". The rule that the proper interpretation of an ambiguous instrument is that which least restricts the ownership of the land has been applied by Louisiana courts in a variety of contexts. See, e.g. , Whitehall Oil Co. v. Heard, 197 So.2d 672 (La.App.3rd Cir.), writ refused 250 La. 924, 199 So.2d 923 (1967) (determination of the question whether a landowner created a single servitude over contiguous tracts or a series of multiple interests).

La.Civ.Code art. 730, Revision Comments-1977, comment (b) (West 2018). "In consequence of this, servitudes claimed under titles, are never sustained by implication-the title creating them must be express, as to their nature and extent, as well as to the estate which owes them, and the estate to which they are due." Parish v. Municipality No. 2 , 8 La.Ann. 145, 147 (1853). Predial servitudes, therefore, "cannot be inferred or implied from vague or ambiguous language."

Mardis v. Brantley , 30,773, p. 2 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/25/98), 717 So.2d 702, 704, writ denied , 98-2488 (La. 11/20/98), 729 So.2d 563.

To be effective as to third parties, however, the instrument establishing "a real right in or over an immovable[,]" such as a predial servitude, must be "registered by recording it in the appropriate mortgage or conveyance records[.]" La.Civ.Code art. 3338. Significantly, "such an act or instrument is not effective as to a third person until it is recorded." La.Civ.Code art. 3340. Louisiana Civil Code Article 3343 defines a third person as "a person who is not a party to or personally bound by an instrument." Simply stated, if a predial servitude is not recorded, it is not effective against third parties pursuant to our public records doctrine, which our supreme court further expounded upon in Cimarex Energy Company v. Mauboules , 09-1170, 09-1180, 09-1194, pp. 18-20 (La. 4/9/10), 40 So.3d 931, 943-44:

The Louisiana Public Records doctrine generally expresses a public policy that interest in real estate must be recorded in order to affect third persons. Simply put, an instrument in writing affecting immovable property which is not recorded is null and void except between the parties. See Peter S. Title, Louisiana Real Estate Transactions , § 8.1 (2009). The public records doctrine is founded upon our public policy and social purpose of assuring stability of land titles. Camel v. Waller , 526 So.2d 1086, 1089 (La.1988)....
....
The public records doctrine has been described as a negative doctrine because it does not create rights, but, rather, denies the effect of certain rights unless they are recorded. Title, supra at § 8.16; Camel , 526 So.2d at 1089-1090 ; Phillips v. Parker , 483 So.2d 972, 975 (La.1986). In explaining the negative nature of the doctrine, this Court has stated that third persons are not allowed to rely on what is contained in the public records, but can rely on the absence from the public records of those interests that are required to be recorded. Camel , 526 So.2d at 1090 [citing Redmann, The Louisiana Law of Recordation: Some Principles and Some Problems , 39 Tul. L.Rev. 491 (1965)]. The primary focus of the public records doctrine is the protection of third persons against unrecorded interests. Camel , 526 So.2d at 1090 ; Phillips , 483 So.2d at 976.
Because recordation is not the source of legal rights, Orange River can not simply rely on, and only look to, the public records doctrine to support its position that the Mauboules' claim was not a competing claim for purposes of concursus. While a third party is entitled to rely on the absence from the public record of those interests that are required to be recorded, the public records doctrine does not provide that a third party may rely implicitly on what is shown in a recorded instrument, nor does it provide that a third party who relies on a recorded instrument can acquire good title from a vendor who does not have good title. Redmann, supra at 500 [citing Succession of Rosinski , 158 So.2d 467, 469 (La.App. 3 Cir.1963) ].... Simply put, "the rule that what is not recorded is not effective does not mean that what is recorded is effective at all events, despite forgery or any other defect." Redmann, supra , at 501.

Accordingly, under our well-established civilian tradition, as codified in our Civil Code, a predial servitude by title, such as the one alleged herein, can never be sustained by implication. Because a predial servitude cannot be inferred or implied from vagueness or ambiguity, the language of its title must, therefore, be express. Moreover, both the dominant and servient estates need to be reasonably identifiable therein, and such a servitude is only binding on third parties once it is properly recorded.

As third parties to the 2008 Act of Exchange, the parties herein-the Brunsons, Crown Brake, and Mr. Close-are not allowed, under our public records doctrine, to rely on what is contained in the public record. They can, however, rely on the absence of those interests that, by law, had to be recorded, such as the predial servitude at issue. Moreover, because our public records doctrine denies the effect of certain unrecorded rights, it logically follows that these third parties could only possibly, if even, be bound by what was recorded-the 2008 Act of Exchange and its attachments, namely Exhibit A and the December 9, 2008 plat survey. Our resolution of the rights at issue, therefore, is likewise constrained to these recorded documents. After examining the documents, we find that the language contained therein is not sufficient to create a predial servitude of passage in favor of the Crown Brake property across either the Brunson property or the Close property.

At the outset, we note that the language in Exhibit A of the 2008 Act of Exchange recited above is clearly ambiguous. While it is debatable as to whether the language reasonably identifies a dominant estate, i.e., "the tract," there is absolutely no identification of the servient estate. Rather, by its language, Exhibit A defers to "the attached plat" as to the specifics of both the "tract" and the servitudes. However, the attached plat survey is not the survey explicitly named in the document and, more importantly, does not contain any verbiage or notations setting forth or referring to a servitude or its location, much less to a servient or dominant estate. Moreover, the November 18, 2008 survey plat to which Exhibit A refers by name was never recorded.

Given this ambiguity, doubts necessarily arise as "to the existence, extent, or manner of exercise of [the alleged] predial servitude." La.Civ.Code art. 730. Under both codified law and our civilian tradition, we are mandated to resolve this ambiguity "in favor of the [alleged] servient estate" and with the least restriction on the unencumbered ownership of land. Id. We are not called upon to delve into the intent of the contracting parties when, as in this case, the parties seeking to enforce or denounce the alleged predial servitudes are third parties to the establishing act. Therefore, we find the trial court legally erred in seeking to enforce what it determined to be the intent of the contracting parties and thereby concluding that predial servitudes in favor of the Crown Brake property burden the Brunson and the Close properties. Rather, we find that the recorded documents fail to express, on their faces, the nature, location, and extent of a charge for the benefit of the Crown Brake property on either the Brunson property or the Close property sufficient, under our law, to create predial servitudes of passage binding on third parties to the 2008 Act of Exchange.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant judgment declaring that the 2008 Act of Exchange, as recorded, did not create predial servitudes of passage in favor of the Crown Brake property over either the Brunson property or the Close property. The injunction against Crown Brake shall remain in full force and effect.

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. Judgment is hereby granted in favor of Joan and Dana Brunson and Cory Close, declaring that the 2008 Act of Exchange, as recorded, did not create predial servitudes of passage over their properties for the benefit of the Crown Brake, LLC property. The injunction against Crown Brake, LLC shall remain in full force and effect.

Costs of this appeal are assessed to the Defendant/Appellant, Crown Brake, LLC.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

      Mr. Close filed an exception of prescription in this court, arguing that the alleged servitude across his property was extinguished by prescription of ten years non-use. Our finding that the 2008 Act of Exchange, as recorded, did not create a servitude across his property or the Brunsons' property renders his exception, along with all remaining issues and assignments of error, moot.

      Ballina Farms, Inc., is now known as Ballina Investments, Inc.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Kyzar, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles MIDDLETON, a/k/a Charles Kirkland Middleton
    19-110
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    June 19, 2019
    Brenda Sibille Piccione, James Kirk Piccione, Piccione & Piccione, P.O. Box 3029, Lafayette, LA 70502-3029, 337-233-9030, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: Charles Middleton
    Keith Stutes, District Attorney, Alan Haney, Assitant District Attorney, 15th Judicial District, 800 South Buchanan Street, Lafayette, LA 70501, 337-232-5170, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
    Court composed of John D. Saunders, John E. Conery, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.
   Kyzar, Judge.

The Defendant, Charles Middleton, has filed the instant application for supervisory writs from the trial court's December 14, 2018 ruling denying the defense's request to subpoena Lafayette Parish District Attorney Keith Stutes (DA Stutes) and Assistant District Attorney Alan Haney (ADA Haney) to testify at a hearing on a motion to disqualify the prosecutors from involvement in his perjury case as alleged witnesses.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 30, 2016, a Lafayette Parish grand jury charged Defendant, Charles Middleton, with one count of perjury, in violation of La.R.S. 14:123. Defendant is accused of testifying falsely at the August 17, 2016 grand jury investigation of Lafayette City Marshall Brian Pope. On September 25, 2018, the defense filed a motion to disqualify DA Stutes and ADA Haney, wherein he argued that the prosecutors should be recused from his case because they were witnesses to the alleged crime as they were present at the grand jury investigation wherein the alleged perjury occurred on August 17, 2016.

On October 5, 2018, the defense submitted a letter to the clerk of court requesting subpoenas for both DA Stutes and ADA Haney to testify at the hearing on the defense's motion to recuse. On October 26, 2018, the State filed a "Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum for District Attorney Keith Stutes and Assistant District Attorney Alan Haney" with the trial court. The prosecution alleged the motion for subpoenas did not comport with La.Code Evid. art. 507. On November 2, 2018, the defense filed a formal motion for subpoenas together with a memorandum in support of the motion.

At the hearing on the motion for subpoenas held on December 14, 2018, the trial court denied Defendant's request in open court. Following the ruling, the defense timely gave notice of its intent to seek supervisory review and subsequently timely sought an extended return date. The trial court set the first return date for January 12, 2019, and then extended the return date for February 11, 2019. On February 12, 2019 (postmarked February 11, 2019), Defendant, through counsel, timely filed a writ application with this court seeking supervisory review of the trial court's December 14, 2018 ruling denying the defense's request to subpoena both DA Stutes and ADA Haney.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

At the December 14, 2018 hearing on the motion for subpoenas, the defense submitted the entire record into evidence as support for the motion, including the bill of indictment, the motion to suppress, and the motions to disqualify. The defense urged that the subpoenas for DA Stutes and ADA Haney, along with the documents requested therewith, were needed as they were essential to the defense, and pursuant to La.Code Evid. art. 507, the trial court was required to order the subpoenas and the production of the evidence unless it was protected by a privilege. Defense counsel affirmed that the request was not for the purpose of harassment, that the request was listed with particularity, that the request was reasonably limited in subject matter, that there were no practical alternative means to obtaining the information, and that prosecutors were subject to the article. See La.Code Evid. art. 507.

Defense counsel urged that, under State v. Ward , 11-438 (La. 4/25/11), 62 So.3d 55, criminal defendants may call prosecutors to testify at trial if the testimony is relevant, material to the theory of the defense, and not repetitious or cumulative of other evidence. Further, as it was Defendant's burden to show that the evidence was essential to the defense, the defense pointed out that both prosecutors were present and witnesses to the charged perjury, which make the prosecutors eye witnesses. Defendant argued that since intent is at issue, the prosecutors' testimony about Defendant's demeanor, such as whether Defendant was cooperative or evasive, and the circumstances surrounding Defendant's testimony would be relevant at his trial for perjury.

Defense counsel further contended that another issue at trial is whether the alleged perjury was material to Brian Pope's culpability, the criminal defendant about whose case Defendant was called to testify in the grand jury investigation. The defense claimed the prosecutors would be best qualified to testify as to the materiality of the alleged perjury. The defense then introduced into evidence the testimony of Defendant at the grand jury hearing in the Brian Pope case.

The prosecution pointed out that the Defendant had waived a jury trial, so his demeanor while testifying before the grand jury would be something best determined by the trial judge. Moreover, the prosecution urged that it is the State's burden of proof at Defendant's trial that the alleged perjury was material to the Brian Pope case. Further, the prosecution intended to call other witnesses who were involved in the Brian Pope case and, thus, able to testify as to the materiality of any false statements. The prosecution pointed out that there is an actual voice recording of the grand jury proceedings such that any evasiveness can be perceived from the recording of Defendant's testimony itself, that the court reporter was an eye witness to the proceeding, that there was a transcript of the grand jury proceeding, and, further, that any questions the defense would ask DA Stutes and ADA Haney about Defendant's demeanor would be speculative.

At the conclusion of the argument, the trial court denied the request for subpoenas for ADA Haney and DA Stutes. The State noted that it had an open file policy and agreed to provide any documents related to the Brian Pope case. The parties then recorded Defendant's waiver of his right to trial by jury.

Defendant asserts that "[t]he trial court erred in denying the defendant's request to subpoena the prosecuting attorneys to appear at a motion to disqualify." Defendant contends that "as witnesses in the perjury case, their testimony is necessary to support [Defendant's] motion to disqualify them from also acting as prosecutors on [Defendant's perjury] charge. Their testimony is essential to the theory of the defense for Charles Middleton." Thus, the question posed to this court is actually twofold. One: are the subpoenas necessary for the hearing on the motion to disqualify DA Stutes and ADA Haney? Two: is the testimony of DA Stutes and ADA Haney necessary for Defendant to present a defense in his trial for perjury? The answer to the second question necessarily disposes of the first. An appellate court uses the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a motion to subpoena a prosecuting attorney.

State v. Tucker , 49,950 (La. App. 2 Cir. 7/8/15), 170 So.3d 394.

The defense contends the testimonies of DA Stutes and ADA Haney, as witnesses to the accused offense, are necessary for a just hearing on Defendant's motion to recuse the prosecutors as they are eye witnesses to his alleged perjury offense. Defendant contends that both DA Stutes and ADA Haney were present throughout the grand jury proceedings, participated in investigating Brian Pope and Defendant, and engaged in questioning Defendant at the grand jury hearing. Defendant claims that as both prosecutors were involved in the gathering of evidence and the planning of the questions to ask Defendant, only they can testify to the events leading up to Defendant's alleged crime; thus, forming the basis for the request to disqualify them as prosecutors in the instant case.

Defendant frames the basis of the underlying perjury charge against him is as follows: Defendant denied knowing a "Mr. Redmond" during the grand jury investigation of Brian Pope; however, the investigation showed Defendant had exchanged emails and had one phone call with Jason Redmond on two separate days occurring ten months before the grand jury testimony, but Defendant had never met Mr. Redmond in person, and the two-day communication was the extent of their relationship. Though there is some evidence Defendant, in his capacity as legal counsel for the City Marshall's Office, prepared a motion to obtain sealed records on Mr. Redmond's behalf at the request of Brian Pope, the defense claims that this was prepared as a "ghost motion" in the name of "Troyce Thorla," that Defendant simply dropped off the pleading with a receptionist, that Defendant never made contact with the actual recipient, and that Defendant both billed and received payment from the City Marshall's Office for drafting the motion and referred to the drafted pleading in the billing as the "Redmond motion."

Defendant explained that his motion for subpoenas included the testimony of ADA Haney and DA Stutes, as well as all related or relevant documents in the possession of the district attorney's office at the time of Brian Pope's grand jury hearing, including all documents connected with Defendant and Jason Redmond, emails between the two, invoices for legal services between Defendant and Brian Pope or the City Marshall's Office, and correspondence between Defendant and Brian Pope or the Marshall's Office regarding Redmond or the Redmond motion. Defendant contends perjury cannot be proven unless Defendant actually made a false statement to the grand jury and additionally asserts that a false statement is not perjury unless it relates to the material issue or question in controversy.

The defense urges it has shown it has a compelling need for the prosecutors' testimonies and it has exhausted all other sources of the information it seeks from the prosecutors' testimonies. Defendant asserts that he intends to ask the prosecutors about refreshing a witness's memory and whether any such methods were used to refresh Defendant's memory. Defendant asserts that his statement, without having his memory refreshed, could have been made as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory, such that perjury may not exist in the instant case. The defense adds that it intends to ask the prosecutors to testify as to the materiality of Defendant's grand jury statement to the prosecution of Brian Pope. Defense counsel claims that the information cannot be obtained elsewhere as DA Stutes and ADA Haney are the only witnesses with information pertaining to the investigation of Mr. Pope. Because Defendant cannot subpoena the grand jurors, the defense asserts the two prosecutors are the only ones who can explain how Defendant's familiarity with Mr. Redmond affected the grand jury's decision to indict Mr. Pope.

Pursuant to La.Code Evid. art. 507, prosecutors can only be subpoenaed to testify under specific circumstances:

A. General rule. Neither a subpoena nor a court order shall be issued to a lawyer or his representative to appear or testify in any criminal investigation or proceeding where the purpose of the subpoena or order is to ask the lawyer or his representative to reveal information about a client or former client obtained in the course of representing the client unless the court after a contradictory hearing has determined that the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege or work product rule; and all of the following:
(1) The information sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation, prosecution, or defense.
(2) The purpose of seeking the information is not to harass the attorney or his client.
(3) With respect to a subpoena, the subpoena lists the information sought with particularity, is reasonably limited as to subject matter and period of time, and gives timely notice.
(4) There is no practicable alternative means of obtaining the information.
B. Waiver. Failure to object timely to non-compliance with the terms of this Article constitutes a waiver of the procedural protections of this Article, but does not constitute a waiver of any privilege.
C. Binding effect of determination; notice to client. The determination that a lawyer-client privilege is not applicable to the testimony shall not bind the client or former client unless the client or former client was given notice of the time, place, and substance of the hearing and had an opportunity fully to participate in that hearing.
D. Exceptions. This Article shall not apply in habitual offender proceedings when a lawyer is called as a witness for purposes of identification of his client or former client, or in post-conviction proceedings when a lawyer is called as a witness on the issue of ineffective assistance of the lawyer.
E. The procedural provisions and protections afforded by Paragraph A of this Article shall extend to lawyers serving as prosecutors in state, parish, or municipal courts, whether those functions are exercised in the name of the state of Louisiana or any parish or municipality, and whether the lawyer is the attorney general or assistant attorney general, a district attorney or assistant district attorney, or a parish or municipal prosecutor, and shall extend to lawyers employed by either house of the Louisiana Legislature.

In State v. Tuesno , 408 So.2d 1269, 1272-73 (La. 1982) (citations omitted), the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed a district court's refusal to subpoena a prosecuting attorney to testify at a criminal trial:

A trial judge's discretion in determining issues of relevancy and competency and in maintaining an orderly presentation of evidence certainly must yield to the constitutional right of the defendant to call witnesses and produce evidence in defense to a criminal charge. In our adversary system, however, the legal counsel for either party is not generally considered as an ordinary witness because of the very special professional position of counsel in the system.
....
Defendant argues that his "purpose" in calling the assistant prosecutor was to verify that defendant does have a look-alike brother who was being prosecuted for three counts of armed robbery in another section of the court and that the location of these robberies occurred in the same area and on the same weekend. While the defendant did not state this exact purpose to the trial court, the trial court correctly noted that defendant had other means to prove the occurrence of the robberies by the brother and to prove the identity of the brother. The ruling proved eminently correct, when at the trial, the defendant stated that he was not accusing his brother of committing the armed robbery for which defendant was being tried.
In essence, the defendant is contending, not that the robbery of Phillips was committed by his brother, but that Phillips' identification of defendant is patently fabricated and mistaken because the statements by Phillips to the police about the robber and about what Phillips "learned" from persons in the neighborhood more closely fitted defendant's brother than the defendant himself. This overlooks the important in-court identification of defendant when he was side by side with his brother and the street identification before and when defendant was arrested. This identification was not made by the police from Phillips' first description, but from Phillips' identifying defendant at the liquor store location where he was when the police arrested him. Phillips was extensively cross-examined as to his identification of defendant and it was within the jury's province to believe Phillips' identification.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find no error in the trial court's determination that the testimony defendant sought to elicit from the assistant prosecutor was irrelevant. It was also hearsay. The fact that defendant had a look-alike brother who was being prosecuted for other armed robberies in another section of the same court, could have been, and was, established by witnesses other than the assistant prosecutor.

In another case wherein the trial court allowed subpoenas of prosecutors for a hearing on whether the district attorney should be recused, the first circuit in State v. Gates , 08-6, pp. 9-11 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/15/09), 17 So.3d 41, 47-48, writ denied, 09-1342 (La. 10/9/09), 18 So.3d 1283, affirmed the decision of the trial court and held as follows:

[T]he narrow issue presented in this writ is whether article 507 or article 508 of the Louisiana Code of Evidence, if either, is applicable to the subpoena requests and, if so, whether the requirements of the appropriate article have been met.
The wording of articles 507 and 508 is similar, and the articles generally provide that a subpoena shall not be issued to a lawyer to appear or testify in any criminal, civil, or juvenile proceeding where the purpose is to ask the lawyer to reveal information about a client or former client obtained in the course of representing the client. However, the subpoena may be issued if, after a contradictory hearing, the trial court determines that the information sought is not protected by any applicable privilege or work product rule and the purpose of seeking the information is not to harass the attorney or his client, the subpoena lists the information sought with particularity, is reasonably limited as to subject matter and period of time, gives timely notice, and there is no practicable alternative means of obtaining the information. The court must also determine whether, in a criminal proceeding, the information sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation, prosecution, or defense, or in a civil or juvenile proceeding, or in an administrative investigation or hearing, the information sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation, is essential to the case of the party seeking the information, and is not merely peripheral, cumulative, or speculative.
We acknowledge that defendant's request to issue witness subpoenas was made pursuant to article 507, which is only applicable to criminal proceedings. The trial court, however, issued the subpoenas to the assistant district attorneys pursuant to article 508, applicable to civil proceedings. After a review of articles 507 and 508 and the particular matter presented herein, we conclude that article 507 applies in this particular case. Accordingly, defendant's request for subpoenas must be analyzed under the requirements of article 507.
Herein, defendant seeks to subpoena the assistant district attorneys to testify about what they did and said during their conversations with the sheriff's attorney and defense counsel. There is no indication, and relator does not argue, that the subpoenas are requested for the purpose to ask the assistant district attorneys to reveal information from conversations with the district attorney, or other assistant district attorneys, which is protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege or work product rule.
Second, in the context of the facts presented, the purpose does not appear to be to harass the district attorney or assistant district attorneys. While relator has argued that defendant created the alleged basis for his motion to recuse by filing the federal civil rights lawsuit, relator does not argue that the subpoenas were requested to cause harassment.
Third, the request for the subpoenas (and the other documents and arguments presented by defendant) specifically lists the information sought with particularity, is reasonably limited as to subject matter and period of time, and gives timely notice. A review of the request further shows that defendant has narrowly limited the request to information about conversations between the assistant district attorneys, the attorney for the sheriff, and defense counsel.
Fourth, other than the testimony by other attorneys, there is no other practicable means for defendant to obtain the information he seeks. Defendant may want the testimony of the assistant district attorneys to corroborate the testimony of other witnesses. Moreover, defendant may wish to present the testimony of the assistants to avoid any evidentiary objections and issues presented if other witnesses who were not actually present during the conversations testify.
Fifth, the information sought is essential to defendant's presentation of evidence and the completion of the motion to recuse proceedings. Since the testimony directly relates to the basis of the motion to recuse, the information sought is not merely peripheral. Nor is there is any indication that the information is speculative. We note that defendant is obviously arguing prosecutorial misconduct to the charges of resisting an officer and the information sought appears related to the defense of those charges.

In Ward , 62 So.3d at 55-56, the supreme court again discussed the appropriateness of a criminal defendant subpoenaing the prosecutor as a witness at trial:

Although the defendant in a criminal trial has the right to prove his defense, including the calling of a prosecutor who is otherwise a competent witness, the prosecutor's testimony must be relevant and material to the theory of the defense, and it must not be privileged, repetitious, or cumulative. See State v. Tuesno , 408 So.2d 1269, 1273 (La. 1982). In a motion to disqualify the prosecutor, the defendant bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosecutor's testimony is essential to the completion of his defense and that the information sought cannot be obtained through other available witnesses. See State v. Bourque , 622 So.2d 198, 216-17 (La. 1993) ; State v. Tuesno , 408 So.2d at 1272-73 ; see also La.Code Evid. art. 507(A) ; Rule 3.7, Rules of Professional Conduct.
In the instant case, the trial judge specifically found that the information sought by the defendant from the assistant attorney general, who had interviewed the victim on one occasion without an investigator present, could be obtained from other sources. The trial judge had the benefit of the testimony given at the hearing on the motion to disqualify, as well as the various statements made by the victim on multiple occasions. On the showing made by the defendant, we cannot say the trial judge abused her discretion in finding the defendant failed to carry his burden of proof.

In State v. A.D.L , 11-1142, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/12), 92 So.3d 989, 996, this court examined the La.Code Evid. art. 507 factors of determining when an attorney can be called in reference to a criminal case, by looking at an instance when a defendant's trial attorney was called to testify at a hearing to determine whether that defendant validly waived his right to trial by jury:

[T]he trial court did not err when it allowed trial counsel to be subpoenaed and questioned concerning whether Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a trial by jury. All of the prerequisites of article [507] were satisfied. The information sought was essential to the completion of the current appeal. The State's purpose for issuing the subpoenas was not to harass either the client or the attorney but to resolve a question ordered to be resolved by this court. The subpoenas listed the specific information sought and gave timely notice. Finally, there was no alternative means of obtaining the information. The only indication in the record that a jury trial was waived was the fact that a judge trial occurred without objection and the question was not raised on appeal-it was this court that noticed and raised the error patent.

In State v. Tucker , 49,950, pp. 23-27 (La.App. 2 Cir. 7/8/15), 170 So.3d 394, 412-14, the second circuit addressed whether the defendants could disqualify the district attorney and subpoena him for trial.

By assignments No. 9 through 12[,] the defendant alleges that the trial court erred by denying his motions to subpoena the two prosecutors from his capital murder trial, testimony of a defense expert, and testimony of the defendant's prior counsel. Alicia Tucker joining in this pretrial motion also raises the same assignment in her assignment of error number 4. Alicia and Lamondre claim that the prosecutors were needed as fact witnesses in order to confirm that their intention during voir dire was not to tell venire members how they should vote if selected to serve on the jury, "just as Mr. Tucker was not trying to tell Ms. Griffin how she should vote." He also intended to ask the prosecutors the relevant aspects of capital voir dire.
The trial court denied the subpoena motion essentially on grounds that the testimony of the prosecutors regarding voir dire was not relevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendant injury tampering. The defendants claim[ ] that Lamondre's defense against the charge of jury tampering was that he was merely trying to instruct Ms. Griffin about voir dire and not trying to tell her how she should vote. The prosecutor's testimony would show, he reasons, that his communications with Griffin were intended to achieve the same purpose as the intention of the prosecutors during their voir dire examinations of potential jurors, and thus, the jury could conclude that[,] if the prosecutors were not jury tampering, he was not guilty of jury tampering.
An opportunity to be heard, an essential component of procedural fairness, would be an empty one if the state were permitted to exclude competent reliable evidence. State v. Myers , 583 So.2d 67 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1991). Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. La. C.E. art. 401. Even relevant evidence may be excluded if it would be too time consuming or would unnecessarily confuse or excite the emotions of the jury. State v. Myers , supra. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. La. C.E. art. 402. The trial judge's determination regarding the relevancy of offered testimony is entitled to great weight and should not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Myers , supra ; State v. Burrell , 561 So.2d 692 (La. 1990). Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by counsel. La. C.E. art. 103(A)(2).
....
Although the defendant in a criminal trial has the right to prove his defense, including calling a prosecutor who is otherwise a competent witness, the prosecutor's testimony must be relevant and material to the theory of the defense, and it must not be privileged, repetitious, or cumulative. State v. Ward , 2011-0438 (La.4/25/11), 62 So.3d 55 ; State v. Tuesno , 408 So.2d 1269, 1273 (La.1982). The defendant bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosecutor's testimony is essential to the completion of his defense and that the information sought cannot be obtained through other available witnesses. State v. Ward, supra ; State v. Bourque, 622 So.2d 198, 216-17 (La. 1993) ; State v. Tuesno, supra.
....
In State v. Ward, supra , the trial court "found that the information sought by the defendant from the assistant attorney general, who had interviewed the victim on one occasion without an investigator present, could be obtained from other sources." The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that the defendant failed to carry his burden of proof.
....
Trial courts are vested with great discretion in determining the competence of an expert witness, and rulings on the qualification of a witness as an expert will not be disturbed unless there was a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Friday, 2010-2309 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/17/11), 73 So.3d 913 ; State v. Berry, 95-1610 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/96), 684 So.2d 439, 456, writ denied, 97-0278 (La. 10/10/97), 703 So.2d 603.
As noted above, defendants argue that the testimony of the district attorneys who prosecuted the first degree murder trial was relevant to the capital jury selection process involved in this case and relevant to their defense that Lamondre was simply trying to inform Griffin about the process.
We conclude that the trial court correctly denied the motion to subpoena the two prosecutors in Lamondre's murder trial for the stated purpose of presenting his defense. The best evidence of the intent of Lamondre's communication with Latisha is the actual communication, which was available by recording and transcript. The prosecutor's testimony regarding their intent during voir dire would have little relevance, if any, toward showing Lamondre's intent in contacting Latisha Griffin. We also agree with the trial court's conclusion that it would tend to confuse the jury regarding the elements of the offense. Even if the information were relevant to Lamondre's intended defense, questioning the district attorney's intent and purpose in questioning potential jurors during voir dire is clearly privileged and covered under the attorney work product privilege. The trial court is afforded great discretion in the admission of evidence and the defendant has made no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of the prosecutors and defense counsel in this case. This assignment of error is without merit.

In State in the Interest of M.J., 17-302, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/2/17), 220 So.3d 99, 101, writ denied, 07-730 (La. 5/12/17), 219 So.3d 310, (footnote omitted) (citation omitted), the fourth circuit held the State could not call defense counsel to testify because there were other practical means by which to obtain the same information:

Additionally, a subpoena of Ms. Murphy is only permissible if there is no practicable alternative means of obtaining the information to which she would testify. La. C.E. art. 507(A)(4). The State argues that only Ms. Murphy can testify as to what she observed. Nevertheless, the State's burden is not to show that no other witness can testify as to what Ms. Murphy observed, but instead to show that what she witnessed is necessary to prove the State's case. Given the number of witnesses and the audio and video recordings of the alleged incident, Ms. Murphy's testimony is not essential to the State's prosecution. For the same reason, there are practicable alternative means of obtaining the information to which she would testify. Therefore, the State has not met the requirements of subsections (A)(1) and (A)(4).

In the instant case, Defendant asserts the need for the testimonies of DA Stutes and ADA Haney for various reasons, including that they were present during the grand jury hearing and, thus, witnessed the alleged crime. However, we note that there is significant evidence of the events otherwise within the proceedings in the form of an audio recording thereof, a transcript thereof, and a verifying witness in the court reporter who transcribed the proceeding, making the evidence to be elicited from the testimony of DA Stutes and ADA Haney merely repetitious and cumulative. While Defendant further argues that the testimony of the two prosecutors is needed concerning Defendant's demeanor while testifying at the grand jury investigation, such as whether Defendant was cooperative or evasive, the best evidence of such lies in the actual recording and transcript, where voice inflections and responsiveness can be heard and seen directly by the trial judge.

Defendant claims that the testimony of DA Stutes and ADA Haney is needed to determine the circumstances surrounding his testimony (i.e., the investigation into the Brian Pope case) and that they would be the individuals best able to testify about the materiality of Defendant's statements to the culpability of Brian Pope. Defendant further maintains the information cannot be obtained elsewhere because ADA Haney and DA Stutes are the only witnesses with information pertaining to the investigation of Mr. Pope, because Defendant cannot subpoena the grand jurors, and because they are the only ones who can explain how Defendant's familiarity with Mr. Redmond affected the grand jury's decision to indict Mr. Pope.

We note, however, that there has been no mention of any intent to qualify the prosecutors as expert witnesses and, further, any such opinion given by the prosecutors that the alleged false testimony of Defendant as to Mr. Redmond is or is not material to the Pope trial and investigation is objectionable as "[s]uch testimony invades the province of the [trier of fact] and usurps its function." State v. Young , 09-1177, p. 10 (La. 4/5/10), 35 So.3d 1042, 1048, cert. denied , 562 U.S. 1044, 131 S.Ct. 597, 178 L.Ed.2d 434 (2010). Further, although maintaining that the information it seeks to introduce at trial by the testimony of the two witnesses cannot be obtained elsewhere, Defendant does not explain why the testimony of the investigators and law enforcement personnel directly involved in the Brian Pope matter would be unable to provide the information regarding the materiality of Defendant's statements.

At the hearing on the subpoena motion, the prosecution asserted that both the relevant transcripts and voice recordings are readily available to be introduced into evidence at trial; that there were other witnesses, such as the court reporter, to Defendant's statement during the Brian Pope grand jury proceeding; that there were other people involved in the prosecution of Brian Pope who could be called to testify about the materiality of any false statements by Defendant; and that any testimony by the prosecutors regarding Defendant's evasiveness or sincerity would be speculative. Moreover, the defense does not explain how any testimony by the prosecutors about the investigation of Brian Pope and their part in the development of the case, as work product, would not be confidential and subject to attorney-client privilege under La.Code Evid. art. 506. Additionally, while Defendant asserts that it needs to call the prosecutors as witnesses to give testimony on the materiality of Defendant's grand jury testimony to Brian Pope's culpability, we note that the materiality of false testimony is a matter of law for determination by the trial court judge, not a factual question such as to require witness testimony. State v. Occhipinti , 358 So.2d 1209 (La. 1978). As to Defendant's intent to commit perjury, according to Tucker , 170 So.3d at 414, transcripts and recordings of a communication are the best evidence of a defendant's intent: "The best evidence of the intent of Lamondre's communication with Latisha is the actual communication, which was available by recording [audio recording of a prison phone call] and transcript." In the instant case, as in Tucker , both transcripts and audio recordings of Defendant's statements are available to the defense.

We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that the request for subpoenas met the requirements of La.Code Evid. art. 507, and thus denying Defendant's request to subpoena both DA Stutes and ADA Haney. It is the burden of the State to prove the Defendant's guilt and all of the elements of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. While Defendant argues that his defense hinges on the prosecutors' focus of precise questions in the grand jury proceeding and Defendant's demeanor while answering the questions, we find that the best evidence of such is the audio recording of the grand jury proceeding and the accompanying transcript. Thus, Defendant has failed to establish that the evidence necessary for his defense is not available by other means.

Defendant cites multiple cases in an attempt to establish that the prosecutors here are necessary to his defense, including State v. Marrero , 525 So.2d 203 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1988) ; Bronston v. United States , 409 U.S. 352, 93 S.Ct. 595, 34 L.Ed.2d 568 (1973) ; United States v. Bell , 623 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980) ; and State v. Williams , 111 La. 1033, 36 So. 111 (La. 1904). However, all of these cases relate to the nature of, proof of, and sufficiency of evidence necessary to convict one of perjury, not mitigation or exoneration evidence in defense thereof, and are inapplicable to whether the subpoenas of the prosecutors in this case should issue. Defendant essentially is attempting to dictate how the State should conduct its prosecution of the case. Certainly, the State could, as Defendant would prefer, recuse itself and allow the Attorney General to take over the prosecution. The DA and ADA may then wish to offer the Attorney General the use of their testimony. Defendant, however, does not have the right to dictate this alternative. Rather, "the district attorney has entire charge and control of every criminal prosecution instituted or pending in his district, and determines whom, when, and how he shall prosecute." La.Code Crim.P. art. 61. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for the subpoenas of the prosecutors in this particular case.

As this is a bench trial, the trial judge will be fully able to weigh the evidence, listen to and read Defendant's grand jury testimony, assess credibility, and determine whether the State has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on all the evidence admitted. We further note that the trial court has the discretion in the interest of justice to revisit the issue of either prosecutor's potential testimony as a constitutional safeguard to preserve Defendant's right to present a defense should the same be shown to be essential during trial. Accordingly, the trial court's decision to quash the subpoenas of District Attorney Keith Stutes and Assistant District Attorney Alan Haney to testify at the hearing on the motion was within its discretion on the showing made at this stage of the proceedings. Defendant's writ application is thus denied.

WRIT DENIED


author: GREMILLION, Judge.

text:
    Brian MULLEN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, GEICO Casualty Company, and Vincent C. Roco
    19-351
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    June 19, 2019
    Ralph G. Breaux, Nathan Gaudet, Perrier & Lacoste, LLC, One Canal Place, 365 Canal Street, Suite 2550, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, (504) 212-8820, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Starr Indemnity & Liability Company
    Richard D. Chappius, Jr., Voorhies & Labbé, 700 St. John Street, 5th Floor, Lafayette, Louisiana 70501, (337) 232-9700, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Axis Surplus Insurance Company
    Duane L. Cochenour, Hall, Booth & Smith, PC, 191 Peachtree Street, NE Ste. 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 954-5000, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Axis Surplus Insurance Company
    Gregory Marceaux, Marceaux Law Firm, LLC, 2901 Hodges Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601, (337) 310-2233, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Brian Mullen
    Joseph R. Pousson, Jr., Plauche, Smith & Nieset, LLC, 1123 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601, (337) 436-0522, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Vincent C. Roco
    David P. Salley, Stephen C. Resor, Amy D. Hotard, Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor, LLC, One Canal Place, 365 Canal Street, Suite 1710, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, (504) 566-8800, Counsel for Intervenor: Great American Assurance Insurance Company
    Benjamin H. Vaughan, Ryan Smith, White & Williams, LLP, 1650 Market Street, One Liberty Place, Suite 1800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, (215) 864-6804, Counsel for Intervenor: Great American Assurance Insurance Company
    John P. Wolff, III, Collin J. LeBlanc, Sydnee D. Menou, Keogh, Cox & Wilson, Ltd., 701 Main Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802, (225) 383-3796, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant: Scottsdale Insurance Company
    Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
   GREMILLION, Judge.

Defendants/Appellants, Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale), Starr Indemnity & Liability Company (Starr), and Axis Surplus Insurance Company (Axis), filed three separate appeals seeking review of a January 9, 2019 judgment which denied the various motions for summary judgment filed on behalf of these three insurance companies and granted the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Plaintiff, Brian Mullen (Mullen).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This suit arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on January 26, 2016, in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. At the time of the accident, Mullen was employed by Stafford Transport of Louisiana, Inc. (Stafford Transport), and was driving an eighteen-wheeler owned by Stafford Transport. Defendant, Vincent C. Roco (Roco), allegedly lost control of his Toyota Corolla due to heavy rain, entered Mullen's lane of travel, and stuck the eighteen-wheeler, causing it to overturn. Mullen filed suit against Roco and his insurer, State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company (State Farm), as well as Starr, Axis, and Scottsdale, which are the alleged uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) carriers for Mullen's employer.

Starr, Axis, and Scottsdale each filed motions for summary judgment arguing that Georgia law applied. Axis and Scottsdale also alleged that their policies provided no coverage to Mullen for this accident because UM coverage had been validly waived pursuant to Georgia law. Starr filed an additional motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that it is entitled to a credit for all amounts paid, and to be paid, to or on behalf of Mullen by the workers' compensation insurer, Great American Assurance Insurance Company (GAAIC). Mullen then filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that Louisiana law applies because he is a Louisiana resident and because the accident happened in Louisiana. Mullen also sought a ruling that the policies provided UM coverage for this accident because any waivers of UM coverage were invalid under Louisiana law.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied the insurers' motions and granted Mullen's motions. A judgment to that effect was signed on January 9, 2019, and provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED[ ] that there be judgment rendered in favor of ... Mullen, and against defendants, Starr [ ], Axis [ ], and Scottsdale [ ], finding that Louisiana law applies to the ... [i]nsurance policies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that there be judgment rendered in favor of ... Mullen, and against defendant, Starr [ ], granting the motion for partial summary judgment filed by ... Mullen, finding that [ ] Mullen is an insured under the Starr [ ] insurance policy ... and that the policy of insurance provides $ 1,000,000 of uninsured/under insured insurance coverage over and above any liability insurance coverage that insures [ ] Roco.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that there be judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff ..., and against defendant Axis [ ], granting the motion for partial summary judgment filed by ... Mullen, finding that [ ] Mullen is an insured under the Axis [ ] insurance policy ... and that the policy of insurance provides $ 4,000,000 of uninsured/under insured insurance coverage, excess to the primary underlying limit of $ 1,000,000 of the Starr [ ] insurance policy and over and above any liability insurance that insures [ ] Roco.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that there be judgment rendered in favor of [ ] Mullen, and against defendant, Scottsdale [ ], granting the motion for partial summary judgment filed by ... Mullen, finding that [ ] Mullen is an insured under the Scottsdale [ ] insurance policy ... and that the policy of insurance provides $ 5,000,000 of uninsured/under insured insurance coverage, excess to the underlying limit of $ 4,000,000 of the Axis [ ] insurance policy and excess to the primary underlying limit of $ 1,000,000 of the Starr [ ] insurance policy and over and above any liability insurance that insures [ ] Roco.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the motions for partial summary judgment filed on September 24, 2018[,] and September 25, 2018[,] by defendant, Starr [ ], are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the motion for summary judgment filed on April 30, 2018[,] by defendant, Axis [ ][,] and the motion for summary judgment filed on September 26, 2018[,] by Scottsdale [ ] are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED and DECREED that this judgment is not deemed a final appealable judgment.

Starr, Axis, and Scottsdale each filed applications for supervisory writs seeking review of this judgment. In their writ applications, these insurers argued that the trial court erred in denying their motions for summary judgment and in granting the motion for partial summary judgment filed on behalf of Mullen. Those writ applications were consolidated, and on May 15, 2019, this court denied them, finding no error in the trial court's ruling. Mullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 19-35, 19-50, and 19-52 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/15/19) (unpublished writ decision).

In addition to the writ applications, Starr, Axis, and Scottsdale each filed motions for devolutive appeal from the January 9, 2019 judgment, seeking review of the granting of Mullen's motion for partial summary judgment. Orders of appeal were signed by the trial court. Just before the decision on the writ applications was rendered, the record in the appeal was lodged. Because the judgment is partial summary judgment that was specifically declared as not being a final judgment by the trial court, this court ordered Starr, Axis, and Scottsdale to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal should not be dismissed. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B).

"The denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory ruling from which no appeal may be taken, the only practical remedy available to avoid a possibly useless trial on the merits is to request that the appellate court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to review the propriety of this ruling." Breaux v. Cozy Cottages, LLC , 14-486, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/12/14), 151 So.3d 183, 187. However, the instant judgment also grants summary judgment in favor of Mullen, finding that Louisiana law applies to the Starr, Scottsdale, and AXIS policies, that Mullen is an insured under the three policies, and that these three policies provide UM coverage to Mullen over and above any liability insurance that insures Roco. It was specifically designated by the trial court as not being a final judgment.

Scottsdale and Axis argue that an ambiguity exists in Louisiana law regarding whether or not the granting of Mullen's motion for partial summary judgment is appealable because where a motion for summary judgment is rendered on an issue that may dispose of an entire case as to a party, it is unclear whether such a judgment falls outside the scope of La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(E) but still within the scope of La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A).

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1915(A) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] final may judgment may be rendered ... even though it may not grant the successful party ... all the relief prayed for, or may not adjudicated all the issues in the case" under certain circumstances, including the granting of "a motion for summary judgment as provided by Articles 966 through 969, but not including a summary judgment granted pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(E). Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(E) provides that "summary judgment may be rendered dispositive of a particular issue, theory of recovery, cause of action, or defense, ... even though the granting of the summary judgment does not dispose of the entire case as to that party or parties." Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1915(B) provides, in pertinent part, that a partial summary judgment "shall not constitute a final judgment unless it is designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that there is no just reason for delay."

In this instance, the granting of Mullen's motion for partial summary judgment resolves the issues of choice of law and applicability of coverage but does not dispose of the entire case as to any party because causation and the amount of damages are still at issue. Thus, we find Scottsdale's and Axis' argument to be without merit. The granting of Mullen's motion for partial summary judgment in this case falls squarely within the parameters of La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(E) and is expressly excluded from being considered as a final judgment under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A).

In Christiana v. S. Baptist Hosp. , 03-1880, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/4/04), 867 So.2d 809, 811-812 (footnotes omitted), the fourth circuit noted that:

shortly after Douglass [v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation , 96-2825, (La. 6/13/97), 695 So.2d 953 ] was decided, the legislature enacted La. Acts 1997, No. 483, § 2, amending La. C.C.P. arts. 966 and 1915. The amendment to La. C.C.P. art. 966 made it clear that the district court had the authority to grant a partial summary judgment. The amendment to La. C.C.P. art. 1915 made it clear that the grant of a partial summary judgment disposing of a particular issue was no longer considered a final appealable judgment unless the parties agreed that it was final or the trial court designated the judgment as a final judgment, after making an express determination that there was "no just reason for delay." ... [T]he issue of whether this Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to review such judgments appears to be left to the sound discretion of the court. Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc. , 396 So.2d 878 (La.1981).

In Terrell v. Town of LeCompte , 18-311 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/18) (unpublished writ decision), this court denied a writ application filed by the defendants after the trial court granted a partial declaratory summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment on the same issues, i.e., whether certain sales tax money could be spent on day to day necessities for civil defense/emergency preparedness. This court found that the judgment at issue was a partial summary judgment under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B) and denied the writ, finding "that the relators have an adequate remedy through ordinary appeal, either by obtaining a designation of the judgment as final for express reasons given by the trial court or by appealing after there has been a complete adjudication of all claims and the rights and liabilities of all parties in this action." Id.

The defendants then sought writs from the Louisiana Supreme Court, arguing that: (1) the case should be remanded to the Third Circuit for the writ to be converted to an appeal or (2) the writ should be granted with the issuance of "a leading opinion on the various nuances of the recent revisions to [ La.Code Civ.P. art. 966 ]" so that the writ would be considered "like [a] true appeal[ ]." The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ; however, the case was remanded to the trial court "for a determination of whether or not this partial summary judgment is a final judgment. If it is certified as a final judgment, then it can be appealed, provided the appellate requirements are met. If this partial summary judgment is not designated as a final judgment, then there is an adequate remedy on appeal." Terrell v. Town of Lecompte , 18-1087 (La. 9/28/18), 253 So.3d 134, 135. This court interprets this last sentence to mean that there is an adequate remedy on appeal after the complete adjudication of the matter.

In the case sub judice, however, the ruling specifically states that the "judgment is not deemed a final appealable judgment[,]" such that there is no need to remand the matter for a determination as to or a designation of finality as required by Terrell , 253 So.3d 134.

The trial court is not required to certify a partial judgment as final. Whether to designate an otherwise partial judgment as final is left to the trial court and is reviewable by this court under the abuse of discretion standard via an application for supervisory writs. See Miller v. Tassin , 02-2383 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/4/03), 849 So.2d 782. If no reasons for the certification as final are given, however, this court makes "a de novo determination of whether the certification was proper." R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum , 04-1664, p. 14 (La. 3/2/05), 394 So.2d 113, 1122. In this case, the trial court did not make an express determination that it could not certify that there is no just reason for the delay for an immediate appeal but simply declared that the judgment was not a final judgment. That issue was not raised in the writ applications filed by Starr, Axis, and Scottsdale, and none of them raise it in response to the rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.

We find that the judgment at issue herein is an interlocutory judgment not subject to immediate appeal. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over it. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B)(2). Additionally, we decline to convert this matter to an application for supervisory writs since Starr, Axis, and Scottsdale have already filed applications for supervisory writs with regard to this judgment, and this court has ruled on these writ applications. Mullen , 19-35, 19-50, and 19-52, (unpublished writ decision).

DECREE

For the reasons given, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal because it was taken from a partial summary judgment under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B) that the trial court specifically designated as not being a final judgment. This appeal is dismissed without prejudice. Costs are assessed to Starr, Axis, and Scottsdale in equal percentages.

APPEALS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

      The signing of an order of appeal does not equate to a designation that the judgment is final and appealable. In re Succession of Guilbeau , 10-1200 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/1/10), 51 So.3d 185.

      Scottsdale filed a response to the rule to show cause, and both Axis and Starr adopted Scottsdale's position.

      Judge Cooks dissented, finding that the cross motions for summary judgment disposed of the only issue in the case.