Nobel Insurance Company VS State of Louisiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 0120 NOBEL INSURANCE COMPANY VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 Appealed from the TwentySecond Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Trial Court Number 2006 13242 Honorable Richard A Swartz Judge eW3E3EXXM Michael D Singletary Opelousas LA Attorney for Plaintiff Appellant Nobel Ins Co Walter P Reed District Attorney Jessica J Brewster Asst District Attorney Covington LA Attorneys for Defendant Appellee State of Louisiana and Kathryn Landry Baton Rouge LA BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ WELCH J Plaintiff Nobel Insurance Company Noble appeals a summary judgment rendered in favor of defendant the State of Louisiana State dismissing a petition seeking nullification of five judgments of bond forfeiture upon finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the judgments We affirm BACKGROUND In July and August of 1998 Noble placed appearance bail bonds into proceedings being held in the 22 Judicial District Court JDC in favor of five criminal defendants and obtained the release of the defendants The defendants failed to appear on hearing dates and bond forfeiture judgments were rendered against Noble in October and November of 1998 On July 27 2006 Noble filed this lawsuit against the State seeking to have each of the judgments declared nullities because they had been signed by the Commissioner for the 22 JDC James J Gleason III whom Noble claimed lacked legal authority to sign the judgments Noble and the State filed cross motions for summary judgment on the legal issue of whether Commissioner Gleason had authority to sign the judgments of bond forfeiture The State insisted that La R 13 which created the Office S 719 of Commissioner for the 22 JDC gave Commissioner Gleason the authority to render and sign judgments of bond forfeiture The State argued that the de facto officer doctrine applied and validated the actions performed by Commissioner Gleason under the color of his official title Noble argued that subject matter jurisdiction to render the judgments was lacking because Commissioner Gleason was not a duly elected judge of the 22 By Acts 2002 1 Ex Sess No 28 ST JDC It also argued that although La R S 1 2 subsequent to rendition of the judgments at issue herein LA R 13 was repealed and the subject matter of the statute was reenacted as S 719 La R 13 S 721 2 719 13 vested Commissioner Gleason with authority over criminal matters a bond forfeiture proceeding is civil in nature and therefore Commissioner Gleason lacked statutory authority to render the judgments Noble argued that the de facto officer doctrine was not applicable because Noble was not challenging the constitutionality or legality of La R 13 or of Commissioner Gleason S 721 stitle or office but instead claimed that Commissioner Gleason exceeded the scope of his statutory authority by signing the judgments of bond forfeiture and therefore Commissioner Gleason could not have been acting as a de facto officer at the time he signed the judgments The trial court agreed with the State position finding that the 22 JDC did s have subject matter jurisdiction over the judgment and that when he signed the judgments of bond forfeiture Commissioner Gleason was acting on behalf of the 22 JDC under the authority of La R 13 which gave the Commissioner S 719 jurisdiction over criminal matters concurrent with that of the judges of the 22nd JDC The court determined that Commissioner Gleason was a de facto officer and pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine the judgments of bond forfeiture were valid Finding no genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the bond forfeiture judgments the trial court granted the State motion for summary s judgment and dismissed the petition From this judgment Noble appealed DISCUSSION In this appeal Noble contends that Commissioner Gleason was without legal power and authority to sign the final civil judgments of bond forfeiture and therefore Commissioner Gleason lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render the final judgments under attack Noble submits that the judgments are absolute nullities under La C art 2002 which provides that a judgment is null when P rendered by a court that does not have subject matter jurisdiction Noble also contends that the Commissioner exceeded his express statutory authority in 3 adjudicating and signing the bond forfeiture judgments as they are civil in nature while the Commissioner statutory authority extended only to criminal matters s and therefore Commissioner Gleason could not have been acting as a de facto officer at the time he signed the judgments of bond forfeiture The State on the other hand contends that it is undisputed that the 22 JDC had subject matter jurisdiction over this action and that Commissioner Gleason was the duly appointed Commissioner of the 22 signed JDC at the time the judgments were The State submits that the judgments of bond forfeiture arose from the criminal jurisdiction of the court and that La R 13 which gave jurisdiction S 719 to the Commissioner over all criminal matters concurrent with the trial court authorized Commissioner Gleason to sign the judgments of bond forfeiture Additionally the State argues the de facto officer doctrine validated Commissioner Gleason actions s Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine a particular class of actions or proceedings based upon the object of the demand the amount in dispute or the value of the right asserted La C art 2 A subject matter jurisdiction challenge addresses the authority of P a court to render a judgment The 22d JDC clearly had the legal power and authority to render judgments of bond forfeiture Louisiana Revised Statutes 719 13 authorized the judges of the 22 JDC to appoint Commissioner Gleason to preside over certain criminal matters The legal issue in this case is whether the rendering ofjudgments of bond forfeiture is within the scope of authority vested in the Commissioner by virtue of La R 13 Because there are no disputed S 719 issues of material fact in this case this legal issue is appropriate for resolution on a motion for summary judgment La C art 966 P Louisiana Revised Statutes 13 in effect at the time the bond forfeiture 719 judgments were entered but which has been subsequently repealed created the 0 Office of Commissioner for the 22 JDC and vested the Commissioner with jurisdiction over criminal matters to be concurrent with that of the judges of the 22 JDC La R 13 C S 719 A D It also vested the Commissioner with subject to the other provisions of the statute all of the powers of a judge of the district court La R 13 The statute set forth that the powers of the S 719 1 E Commissioner which when hearing criminal matters included but clearly were not limited to hearing preliminary motions conducting trial and imposing sentence in misdemeanor cases presiding over jury trials in misdemeanor cases fixing bail in all matters signing and issuing search warrants and punishing for contempt of court La R 13 e fg h S 719 d 2 E i In State v O 20002864 La 5 785 So 768 the Supreme Reilly 01 15 2d Court held that the section of La R 13 authorizing Commissioner Gleason S 719 to conduct trials accept pleas and impose sentences in misdemeanor cases was an unconstitutional exercise of the adjudicatory power of the state by a non elected official However the court found because Commissioner Gleason was a de facto officer acting under the color of law when he presided over criminal defendants cases and sentenced the defendants the Commissioner acceptance of a guilty s plea guilty verdict and the sentences imposed in the misdemeanor cases before the Commissioner were valid In so doing the court noted The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person s appointment or election to office is deficient The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office State v O 2000 2864 at p 12 785 So at 777 citing Ryder v United Reilly 2d States 515 U 177 180 115 S 2031 2034 132 L 136 1995 S Ct 2d Ed The Ocase was relied on in Ranger Insurance Company v State Reilly 5 2006487 La App 3 Cir 10 941 So 182 to validate bond forfeiture rd 06 11 2d judgments entered by the Commissioner of the 15 JDC Therein insurance companies filed petitions for nullity after judgments of bond forfeiture were entered in two criminal matters Louisiana Revised Statutes 13 gave the 716 Commissioner of the 15 JDC the power to perform such duties as were assigned by the chief judge of district court in accordance with rules prescribed by the elected judges of the court The district court rules gave the Commissioner the power to handle duties assigned by the judges including forfeiture motions The appellate court held that the de facto officer doctrine validated the bond forfeiture judgments In so doing the court found that the Commissioner held an office created by statute and that the forfeiture judgments arose out of a proceeding over which the Commissioner had authority to preside Therefore the court upheld the trial court dismissal of the insurance company petition for nullity s s Ranger Insurance Company v State 2006487 at pp 8 9 941 So at 188 2d Noble attempts to distinguish Ranger on the basis that there was no express provision giving Commissioner Gleason the power to render judgments of bond forfeiture in either La R 13 or the court rules Therefore Noble posits S 719 s Commissioner Gleason could not have been a de facto officer when he signed the judgments of bond forfeiture We disagree Louisiana Revised Statutes 13 vested the Commissioner 719 with broad jurisdiction and authority over criminal matters and gave the Commissioner concurrent jurisdiction with that of a district court judge over those matters Regardless of how we characterize the nature of a bond forfeiture proceeding we agree with the State position that it is undisputed that at the time s the bond forfeiture judgments were signed Commissioner Gleason was sitting as a judge in misdemeanor criminal cases assigned to him by the district court pursuant to the authority granted by La R 13 and in those matters Commissioner S 719 2 Gleason had powers concurrent with those of the judges of the 22 JDC Commissioner Gleason authority to sign the judgments of bond forfeiture arose s from the criminal jurisdiction vested in his office by virtue of La R 13 As S 719 Commissioner Gleason was acting within the scope of his statutory authority when he signed the judgments at issue even if that authority was illegally granted to him we find that the de facto officer doctrine as set forth in the O and Reilly Ranger cases applies so as to validate the bond forfeiture judgments rendered by Commissioner Gleason Because there is no genuine issue as to the validity of the bond forfeiture judgments we find that the trial court correctly granted the State s motion for summary judgment thereby dismissing Noble petition for nullity s CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant Noble Insurance Company AFFIRMED 7 All
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.
