CHARLES W. GETTYS, JR. AND TAMMY ABIDE
WILLIAM G. GETTYS, FLOELLEN SANCHEZ-RICKARD, VICTORIA FOGHT VIRGA AND MICHAEL VIRGA
FROM ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 14-0642,
DIVISION "D" Honorable Kirk A. Vaughn, Judge
Michael Dennis ATTORNEY AT LAW
A. Tabary, III TABARY AND BORNE, LLC COUNSEL FOR
D. Young Michael C. Ginart, Jr. Nicholas N.S. Cusimano
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Terri F.
Love, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods
civil appeal involves the co-ownership, partition by
licitation, and reimbursement for renovation of 216 Coney
Drive, an immovable property located in Arabi, Louisiana, in
St. Bernard Parish. For the reasons that follow, we affirm
the trial court's February 9, 2017 judgment.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 15, 2004, the trial court signed a judgment of
possession in the Succession of Florence Schmit Gettys
Sanchez, which awarded Plaintiffs-Appellees, Charles W.
Gettys, Jr. ("Charles") and Tammy Abide
"Plaintiffs-Appellees") and Defendants-Appellants,
William G. Gettys ("William"), Floellen
Sanchez-Rickard ("Floellen"), Victoria Foght Virga,
and Michael Virga (collectively
"Defendants-Appellants"), each an undivided
one-fifth (1/5) interest in 216 Coney Drive
("property"), a residence in St. Bernard Parish
("parish"); all parties are owners in indivision or
co-owners of the property.
18, 2014, Plaintiffs-Appellees filed a petition for partition
of jointly owned property by licitation and rule to show
cause against Defendants- Appellants. On November 10, 2014,
William filed an answer in reconventional demand and alleged
that after Hurricane Katrina, Charles, Tammy, and Floellen
expressed that they no longer "wanted an interest in the
property, " did not want to "put any money into the
property, " and did not want to be responsible for the
costs of repair and any liens or fines from the parish.
William asserted that after Hurricane Katrina, he completely
renovated the property and began residing there. William
further asserted that prior to Hurricane Katrina, he and
Charles agreed to renovate, then sell the property, and
ultimately share the proceeds. William stated that the cost
of renovations totaled $46, 000.00. According to William, he
and Charles agreed to share equally in the costs of the
renovation; however, Charles had not made any payments toward
the cost of the pre-Hurricane Katrina renovation. Therefore,
through the partition of the property proceedings, William
sought reimbursement from Charles in the amount of $23,
000.00, one-half of the cost of the pre-Hurricane Katrina
renovation. Ultimately, William sought reimbursement for the
renovations that he made to the property both before and
after Hurricane Katrina.
trial in this matter began on October 17, 2016, and the trial
court rendered a final judgment on February 9, 2017. The
trial court ordered that the property be partitioned by
licitation and ruled that the property be seized and sold at
auction with a minimum bid of $50, 000.00 and the $48, 476.18
of the net proceeds to be paid to William as reimbursement
for the renovations to the property after Hurricane Katrina.
The trial court's final judgment permitted co- owners to
avoid the sale of the property at auction by agreeing to sell
the property privately before April 1, 2017. It is from this
judgment that William appeals.
appeal, William raises the following assignments of error:
1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to reimburse
William for renovations made to the property before ...