Louis J. Braquet and Toni G. Braquet VS Office of Community Development, An Agency of the State of Louisiana Division of Administration

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0028 LOUIS J BRAQUET and TONI G BRAQUET VERSUS THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION Judgment rendered JUN 1 1 2010 On Appeal from the 19 Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit Number 575 Section 24 724 The Honorable R Michael Caldwell Judge Presiding Frank A Silvestri Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant New Orleans Louisiana Louis J Braquet and Toni G Braquet Erin C Day Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellee The Office of Community Development an Agency of the Division of Administration State of Louisiana Renee Culotta New Orleans Louisiana Allen J Krouse III New Orleans Louisiana BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ ftc cc u oY k DOWNING J Louis J Braquet and Toni G Braquet hereinafter the Braquets appeal a judgment rendered in district court pursuant on their request for judicial review of a determination made by the Office of Community Development an agency of the Louisiana Division of Administration hereinafter OCD We conclude that the district court did not err in sustaining OCD exception of no right of action s because persons aggrieved under the Road Home Program have no right to judicial review pursuant to the Louisiana Administrative Procedures Act hereinafter LAPA Plaintiffs have shown no property interest in the grant money nor has there been an adjudication within the meaning of the LAPA 1 2 Accordingly the district court judgment is affirmed The Braquet residence located in Jefferson Parish was damaged during s Hurricane Katrina They timely filed an application with the Road Home Program claiming they were entitled to a Type I evaluation because the damage to their home exceeded 50 of its pre storm value OCD determined that the home did not exceed 50 of its pre storm value and therefore calculated the loss under a Type II evaluation The disparity in the calculation occurred because OCD placed a higher value on the property than the Braquets appraisals resulting in a lower percentage of damage After exhausting OCD administrative appeal processes the Braquet filed a s petition for judicial review claiming that OCD arbitrary and capricious use of s See also Bowers v Firefighters Retirement System 08 1268 p 4 La 3 T09 6 Sold 173 176 where the l court stated that the scope ofjudicial review of administrative agencies in the performance of a discretionary duty is restricted to a determination of whether the agencys action can be deemed to have been unreasonable arbitrary or capricious or whether it amount to an abuse of power under the arbitrary and capricious standard an agency decision is entitled to deference in its interpretation ofits own rules and regulations 2 Bowers was filed as an ordinary proceeding and was not a petition farjudicial review We make no determination as to whether the Braquets can bring an ordinary action against the State of Louisiana raising legal or constitutional claims An ordinary action however cannot be brought in the same pleading as an action for judicial review because no evidence is allowed under the LAPA when the district court is functioning in an appellate capacity See Delta Bank Trust Company v Lassiter 383 So 330 333 34 La 1980 2d Under the action plan payinent to recipients is based upon 1 pre storm value of home 2 estimated cost of damage 3 amount cf FEMA assistance and 4 amount of insurance payments to homeowner property value figures was plainly wrong in calculating their appraisal and percentage of damage The Braquets argue that OCD should not be allowed to circumvent due process rights when they as grant recipients are entitled to the grant money The thrust of the Braquet appeal is that they should not be improperly s prohibited from seeking judicial review of OCD decision We conclude that in s this regard no mechanism exists to invoke review in the district court under the LAPA In Denham Springs Economic Development District v All Taxpayers Property Owners and Citizens of Denham Springs Economic Development District 05 2274 p 23 La 10 945 So 665 681 the court explained 06 17 2d that the range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite and the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that any grievous loss visited upon a person by the state is sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause Only when protected interests are implicated does the right to some kind of notice and hearing attach Id Here there is no vehicle under the LAPA for the Braquets to show a property interest in the grant money No evidence is admissible pursuant to judicial review under the LAPA See LSAR 49 As such since there S 964 F was nothing admitted into the record in the administrative proceeding below the Bracquets are unable to show that OCD actions were arbitrary and capricious s In the absence of a right of judicial review neither the trial court nor an appellate court has jurisdiction to rule on the merits of a claim Carter v State of Louisiana 03 2728 pp 45 La 1 Cir 10 897 So 149 152 As App 04 29 2d this court explained in Dandridge v Office of Community Development 09 1564 12 2009 WL 4724237 unpublished writ denied 10 0037 La 09 7 10 12 328 So 1029 plaintiffs do not have a right of action for judicial review 3d We note that the Braquets filed a motion to supplement the record on May 11 supplementation we hereby grant the motion 3 Having no objection to the as provided for in La R 49 to challenge the amount they received from the S 964 grant through a judicial review process because they cannot show their entitlement to the grant money Therefore unless there is some provision in the constitution or statutes requiring a hearing an agency disposition is not a decision or order within the meaning of LAPA Id In this case there has been no adjudication to review nor is there a process under the LAPA to force the agency to hold a hearing and to render a decision that can be reviewed by the district court Id Consequently the trial court did not err in finding that the Braquets have no right to judicial review under the APA DECREE Accordingly for the above reasons the district court judgment is hereby affirmed The costs of this appeal in the amount of 688 are assessed to the 00 plaintiffs appellants Louis J Braquet and Toni G Braquet AFFIRMED 4

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.