Richard L. Woods VS State of Louisiana Department of Public Safety, Office of State Police
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1592 RICHARD L WOODS VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE Judgment Rendered APR 3 0 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 551 DIVISION E SECTION 23 860 THE HONORABLE WILLIAM A MORVANT JUDGE Paul A Lemke III Attorney for PlaintiffAppellant Harrisonburg Louisiana Richard L Woods James D Buddy Caldwell Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Appellee State of Louisiana through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections Office of State and F Jonathan Rice Assistant Attorney General Baton Rouge Louisiana Police BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ v I GQwG er O McDONALD J The plaintiff in this matter appeals a district court judgment sustaining the sexception raising the objection of res judicata and dismissing his suit defendant without prejudice FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This litigation arises out of the seizure of currency allegedly derived from illegal drug transactions by the state police in Ouachita Parish on March 3 2004 In June 2004 the district attorney for the Fourth Judicial District Court filed a petition in that court pursuant to the Seizure and Controlled Dangerous Substances Property Forfeiture Act of 1989 La R 40 et seq for an in rem forfeiture S 2601 of 107 of U currency Richard Woods the plaintiff in the matter before us 156 S was served with notice of the suit intervened and claimed ownership of the money Following a trial on the merits the district court concluded that the state trooper had probable cause to stop and detain Woods and that the state had produced sufficient evidence to show that the currency was properly forfeited On appeal the Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court finding that the state had failed to carry its burden of proof that the currency was subject to forfeiture and ordered the funds returned to the claimant Richard Woods See State v 107 U Currency Seized 41 La App 2 Cir 6935 156 S 090 06 30 So 2d 827 writ denied 06 2271 La 11 942 So 2d 557 06 22 In December 2006 116 was returned to Woods representing the 16 292 money seized plus the interest earned on the deposit as calculated by AmSouth Bank On February 2 2007 Woods filed a civil suit in the Nineteenth Judicial District court against the Louisiana State Police seeking legal interest on the 2 money seized from the date of seizure to the date of return plus costs and attorney fees incurred by him in the forfeiture action instituted by the state Peremptory exceptions raising the objections of res judicata and no cause of action were filed by the defendant in October 2008 At the hearing on the matter the attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant represented to the court that the issues had been adequately addressed in their briefs Thereafter the court reviewed the facts in the matter noting that the forfeiture statute La R S L 2611 40 does not provide for legal interest and the attorney fees are discretionary Finding that the claims arose out of the seizure and forfeiture action adjudicated in the Fourth Judicial District Court the court granted the defendant s exception raising the objection of res judicata The plaintiff appealed alleging that the district court erred in granting the exception of res judicata LAW AND ANALYSIS Woods argues that res judicata is not applicable because the parties are not the same See La R 13 The district attorney was a party in the original in S 4231 rem action as required by La R 40 whereas the Louisiana State S 2612 A Police is the proper party defendant in this suit as it was the seizing agency of the property The previous action moreover was an in rem proceeding in which Woods was neither a party plaintiff nor a party defendant Woods correctly states that the law that gives rise to this action is found in La S 2611 R 40 Lwhich provides in pertinent part If a claimant whose property has been seized for forfeiture is successful in obtaining the return of the property in a civil proceeding the court may award the claimant reasonable attorney fees to be paid by the seizing agency and the claimant shall also be exempt from any storage fees or other costs incurred in the seizure preservation storage or return of such seized property In his appellate brief Woods concedes that he is only entitled to interest earned on his funds on deposit See State v Watkins 08 0688 La App 1 Cir 9 994 So 2d 675 08 23 3 He argues that it is clear from a plain reading of the statute that a claimant has no right of action related to recovery of costs and fees until such time as a final judgment is rendered in the forfeiture action wherein that claimant is successful in obtaining the return of the property in a civil proceeding It is correct that a judgment awarding a claimant attorney fees cannot be rendered until the claimant is successful in obtaining return of the seized property However our agreement with that statement does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the dismissal of Woods petition was incorrect It is not that a claimant has no right of action to maintain a suit until the matter is finally adjudicated Claimant is in the class of persons that the law was enacted to protect See La art 681 It is rather that the claim created is one P C for an award of attorney fees in the forfeiture action As noted by the trial court this is a discretionary act by the court hearing the forfeiture action Only that court may exercise its discretion to award attorney fees and we conclude that there is no right to judicially assert a separate action However the burden of proving the facts essential to sustaining an objection is on the party pleading the objection Union Planters Bank v Commercial Capital Holding Corporation 04 0871 La App 1 Cir 3 907 So 129 130 05 24 2d When a party raises an objection of res judicata the court must examine not only the pleadings but also the entire record in the first suit to determine whether the second suit is in fact barred by res judicata Id There is no provision in the law for this court to take judicial notice of a suit record from another court See Louisiana Business College v Crump 474 So 1366 1369 La App 2 Cir 2d 1985 The record before us does not contain the record of the first suit Therefore we cannot agree with the trial court sustaining of the exception raising s the objection of res judicata and do not consider Woods arguments on the issue 4 However the defendant also urged the exception raising the objection of no cause of action and it is permissible for this court to consider that exception on its own motion See La C art 927 P B As noted previously a claim for attorney fees by a person who has been successful in obtaining the return of hisher property may be considered and attorney fees may be awarded at the discretion of the court hearing the forfeiture action The Forfeiture Act does not create a separate cause of action ia matter e that may be determined in a judicial proceeding See Bourgeois v A Green P Industries Inc 00 1528 La 4 783 So 1251 1259 The operative facts 01 3 2d as stated in Woods petition establish that the forfeiture action has been adjudicated in the Fourth Judicial District Court and in the Second Circuit Court of Appeal and that the supreme court denied writs Further the Forfeiture Act bars collateral actions and provides that n o person claiming an interest in property subject to forfeiture may commence or maintain any action against the state concerning the validity of the alleged interest other than as provided in this Chapter La R 40 Although this section S 2620 specifically refers to the validity of the alleged interest in the property seized the right of a successful claimant defending a forfeiture action to be awarded attorney fees is also an interest established and controlled by the Forfeiture Act We conclude that the legislature intended that all actions brought pursuant to the Forfeiture Act concerning the seizure and forfeiture of property must be brought in the judicial forfeiture proceeding described in La R 40 and 2612 S 2611 Accordingly although we cannot affirm the trial court sustaining of the s exception raising the objection of res judicata we do affirm the judgment dismissing the suit without prejudice Costs of this appeal are assessed to Richard L Woods AFFIRMED 5 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1592 RICHARD L WOODS VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE OF THE STATE POLICE BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ PARRO J concurring I concur with the result reached by the majority in this case and write merely to point out additional authority for this court sdecision Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 425 states that a party shall assert all causes of action arising out of the A transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation In this case Woods was required to assert his claim for attorney fees along with his claim for return of the seized funds when he intervened in the forfeiture action in the Fourth Judicial District Court See also LSAR 40 and 2612 S 2611 K Cand D Although that court ruled against him on the issue of the State entitlement to forfeiture his claim for s attorney fees could have been assigned as error on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal The judgment in the forfeiture action became final when the supreme court denied writs Because Woods failed to advance his claim for attorney fees in the forfeiture action he cannot now assert that claim in a separate suit
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
