ROBERT ANDREW SCHIFF AND N.O.W. PROPERTIES, L.L.C.
FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2014-06056,
DIVISION "L" Honorable Kern A. Reese, Judge.
A. King Timothy S. Madden Nicole M. Babb KING & JURGENS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Patrick Klotz KLOTZ & EARLY Mark P. Glago Jatavian L.
Williams Katherine E. May THE GLAGO LAW FIRM, LLC COUNSEL FOR
composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Joy Cossich
Lobrano, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins
A. Lombard, Judge.
devolutive appeal arises from a garnishment proceeding
initiated by the appellee Lidia Pollard against the appellant
Schiff Family Holdings, LP a Nevada limited partnership of
which Robert Schiff is a member. The garnishment proceeding
is an attempt to collect on a judgment rendered in favor of
Ms. Pollard and against Robert Schiff, her former business
partner in N.O.W. Properties, L.L.C. After review of the
record and arguments of the parties in light of the
applicable law, we find that the district court erred when,
through garnishment under a writ of fieri facias, it
ordered the New Orleans Sheriff to seize partnership assets
of the non-resident third person garnishee, Schiff Family
Holdings Nevada Limited Partnership (the Partnership
Garnishee) located in Nevada in the amount of $54, 446.22,
plus 6% Sheriff's commission, interest, and court costs
to fully satisfy a Louisiana money judgment against a
non-resident limited partner, Robert Andrew Schiff (the
Judgment Debtor), as requested by the judgment creditor,
Lidia Pollard (the Judgment Creditor).
Facts and Procedural History
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Ms. Pollard, a Louisiana
resident and real estate renovator, and Mr. Schiff, a
non-resident of Louisiana and real estate investor, entered
into a limited liability partnership (N.O.W. Properties,
L.L.C.) with the intention to purchase, renovate, and sell
properties. The business venture failed, resulting in a
successful breach of contract lawsuit filed by Ms. Pollard
wherein judgment was rendered on August 2, 2013, in favor of
Ms. Pollard and against Ms. Schiff and N.O.W. Properties,
L.L.C. Mr. Schiff appealed the district court judgment and,
while the appeal was pending, filed an action in district
court to nullify the judgment. On appeal, this court amended
the judgment and, as amended (awarding Ms. Pollard a total
amount of $684, 824.73), affirmed the district court
judgment. Pollard v. Schiff, 2013-1682, 2014-0853
(La.App. 4 Cir. 2/4/15), 161 So.3d 48.
Mr. Schiff's nullity action was defeated, Ms. Pollard
(the prevailing party) filed a motion for attorney fees and
costs on September 12, 2017. The district court awarded $54,
466.22, plus interest, Sheriff's commission, and costs,
against Mr. Schiff to Ms. Pollard, the judgment creditor. In
an effort to collect on this judgment, Ms. Pollard sent
garnishment interrogatories to the Schiff Family LP in
Nevada. Barbara Schiff, a member of the Schiff Family LP,
timely answered the interrogatories, denying that the Schiff
Family LP had any of Robert Schiff's property in its
possession. Ms. Pollard filed a Motion to Traverse Answers to
Garnishment Interrogatories, asserting that Mr. Schiff was a
limited partner in the Schiff Family LP and, therefore,
Schiff Family LP was in possession of Mr. Schiff's
property and subject to garnishment.
district court hearing on Ms. Pollard's motion, counsel
for the Schiff Family LP asserted that the Schiff Family LP
could not be subject to garnishment proceedings because Mr.
Schiff's partnership interest in the Schiff Family LP did
not entitle him to automatic or mandated disbursements and he
had received no disbursements since the filing of Ms.
Pollard's garnishment proceeding.
response, Ms. Pollard submitted a copy of the Schiff Family
LP 2017 tax return indicating a capital balance of $20, 443,
000.00 and that Mr. Schiff held a 2.67% partnership interest
in the Schiff Family LP. Based on this evidence, the district
court entered a judgment on November 13, 2018, granting Ms.
Pollard's Motion to Traverse and ordering the Schiff
Family LP to pay the total amount of $54, 446.22, plus 6%
Sheriff's Commission, plus interest and court costs.
Schiff Family LP now appeals this judgment, arguing that it
was error for the district court to (1) award a judgment over
a non-Louisiana resident when it lacked personal jurisdiction
over the non-Louisiana resident: (2) find that Ms. Pollard
established that the Schiff Family LP was in possession of
property belonging to Mr. Schiff; and (3) find that Mr.
Schiff's partnership interest in the Schiff Family LP was
sufficient to satisfy the judgment in full.
it is axiomatic that an appellate court does not address an
issue raised for the first time on appeal. Uniform Rule,
Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3; see also Williams v.
Doctors' Hosp.of Shreveport, Inc., 39, 609, p. 3
(La.App. 2 Cir. 5/11/05, 902 So.2d 1187, 1189. ("[T]he
question of sufficiency of service on a non-resident
defendant may not be raised for the first time on appeal; the
issue should be raised in a suit to annul judgment.")
Because the issues of personal ...