Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

204 So. 3d 1079

204 So.3d 1079

2016 La.App.4Cir. 432

Bridges v. Anderson

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided December 7, 2016

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 2016-12-07

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 2019

1 state decisions

Relies on 119 So. 3d 839 - Housing Authority of New Orleans v. King · 948 So. 2d 1137 - Caluda Realty Trust v. Fifth Business · 172 So. 3d 91 - Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Haynes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2016-12-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JENKINS, J.,

¶1DISSENTS WITH REASONS

¶2hi respectfully dissent. In a review of the record of this matter, I find the trial court erred as a matter of law by granting the eviction without taking any evidence, without the introduction of any exhibits, and without placing any witnesses under oath. The transcript of the proceeding indicates that no exhibits were introduced and neither party was placed under oath. Rather, the trial court merely discussed this matter with the parties in open court without taking evidence or hearing any sworn testimony on this matter. Thus, the record is void of any evidence establishing the legal ground upon which the trial court granted the judgment of eviction. “A judgment of eviction must be reversed when the lessor fails to prove the legal ground upon which the lessee should be evicted.” Housing Authority of New Orleans v. King, 12-1372, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/12/13), 119 So.3d 839, 842, citing Kenneth and Allicen Coluda Realty Trust v. Fifth Business L.L.C., 06-608, p. 4 (La. App. 6 Cir. 12/27/06), 948 So.2d 1137, 1138; see also, Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Haynes, 14-1349 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/13/16), 172 So.3d 91, 104 (Tobias, J., concurring) (“No ‘relaxed’ or simplified rules of evidence apply to eviction proceedings.”). *1085Consequently, I would reverse the- trial court’s judgment of eviction.

/204/so3d/1079 · .json · Public domain