Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Karst v. Fryar
Citation: 430 So. 2d 318Docket: 82-724
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 12, 1983; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
C. Edward Karst appeals the lower court's decision to cancel Notices of Lis Pendens from the Mortgage Records of Rapides Parish, Louisiana, in his ongoing legal battle with Joe E. Fryar. The appeals are consolidated with another case involving the same parties. The court affirms the lower court's ruling and denies Fryar's request for damages due to frivolous appeals. The central issue is whether the actions to nullify judgments are related to the title or mortgage claims on immovable property, justifying the Notices of Lis Pendens. The litigation dates back to 1976, involving disputes over immovable property in Alexandria, Louisiana, where previous judgments favored Fryar and led to the cancellation of Notices of Lis Pendens filed by Karst. Karst has repeatedly attempted to annul these judgments, claiming fraud, but his actions have consistently been dismissed by the courts. The court emphasizes that the purpose of a Notice of Lis Pendens is to inform third parties of litigation that may affect real property title. The relevant Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles concerning a notice of Lis Pendens include Articles 3751-3753. Article 3751 stipulates that the pendency of an action affecting immovable property does not notify third parties unless a notice is recorded as per Article 3752. Article 3752 requires that this notice be in writing, signed by a party involved, and include specific details about the court, case title, docket number, filing date, purpose, and property description. Such notice must be recorded in the parish's mortgage office and becomes effective upon recordation. Under Article 3753, if a judgment is rendered against the party who filed the notice, it must be canceled at that party's expense. In the case at hand, Karst is not asserting any mortgage or privilege on the property, and the litigation does not impact the title to the immovable property involved. Karst's actions aim to annul prior judgments, which do not directly affect property title. Even if successful, he would need to prevail in the original suit regarding property title, indicating the distinct nature of the present suits from the original litigation. As a result, the recordation of the Notices of Lis Pendens is deemed unjustifiable, leading to the affirmation of the lower court's judgments. Karst's argument that notices cannot be canceled until a judgment is rendered lacks merit. Allowing improper notices to remain would hinder a landowner's ability to manage their property. Additionally, Fryar sought damages for frivolous appeals, but the court found Karst's legal stance not unreasonable, denying the request for damages. The judgment is affirmed, with costs borne by Karst. Judge Domengaux concurs with the affirmation but dissents regarding the denial of damages for frivolous appeal, citing the prolonged nature of the litigation and the improper filing of the notice as grounds for awarding damages.