THERIOT v. THIBODEAUX (2026)

This matter is before us on appeal by defendant/appellant, Wendy L. Thibodeaux, in her capacity as Assessor of Lafourche Parish, from an adverse judgment of the trial court granting plaintiff/appellee, Robert J. Theriot, a homestead exemption. For the following reasons, we grant Mr. Theriot's answer to the appeal in part, amend the trial court's April 22, 2025 judgment in part, and affirm the judgment as amended.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1

Robert J. Theriot filed suit against Wendy L. Thibodeaux, in her capacity as Assessor of Lafourche Parish (“the Assessor”), and Craig Webre, in his capacity as Sheriff of Lafourche Parish (“the Sheriff”), alleging that the Assessor erroneously removed a homestead exemption and “disability freeze” for the years 2010 through 2021 on residential property at 414 Eagle Drive, Raceland, Louisiana, which was owned by Mr. Theriot. Mr. Theriot further alleged that the Assessor denied his subsequent reapplication for a homestead exemption and “senior freeze” on said property in July of 2021. Mr. Theriot thus sought a judgment reversing the Assessor's decision to remove the homestead exemption and “disability freeze” for the years 2010 through 2021; in the alternative, limiting the elimination of the homestead exemption and “disability freeze” for a period of three years prior to 2022; and, in the further alternative, granting Mr. Theriot a homestead exemption and “senior freeze” for 2021. Mr. Theriot subsequently filed a supplemental and amending petition seeking a reduction of the assessed value of the property for the 2021 and 2022 tax years.

The Assessor answered the petitions, generally denying the allegations and urging affirmative defenses. The matter proceeded to trial against the Assessor on November 17, 2023, and January 11, 2024.² On April 1, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment in Mr. Theriot's favor, ordering the Assessor, in pertinent part, to reimburse Mr. Theriot “for the amount of all Ad-Valorem property taxes which he paid on his residence at 414 Eagle Drive, Raceland, Louisiana, 70394, in excess of what he should have been required to pay, plus legal interest on the amount of reimbursement owed, after recalculation of the amount of tax owed on that property[.]”

The Assessor filed a suspensive appeal with this court, which was later dismissed due to the lack of a valid, final judgment. Specifically, this court determined that because the amount of Mr. Theriot's reimbursement was not apparent from the reading of the judgment, and required reference to extrinsic sources, the amount of damages was not stated with certainty and precision and the judgment was not final. The matter was then remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct further proceedings for a determination of the amounts awarded in the April 1, 2024 judgment. Theriot v. Thibodeaux, 2024-0734 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/27/24), 403 So.3d 1122, 1125-26.

The matter was reconvened on April 22, 2025, with the trial court issuing a new judgment on the same date, ruling, in pertinent part:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the primary residence of Robert J. Theriot since at least January 1, 2010 has been 414 Eagle Drive, Raceland, Louisiana 70394.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Robert J. Theriot has been and is still entitled to a homestead exemption on his residence on 414 Eagle Drive, Raceland, Louisiana 70394 from January 1, 2010 through the date of the trial on January 11, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Robert J. Theriot has been and continues to be entitled to a “disability freeze” and/or “senior freeze” on his residence located at 414 Eagle Drive, Raceland, Louisiana 70394 since January 1, 2010 through the date of trial on January 11, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Robert J. Theriot shall be reimbursed by the Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office [3] for the amount of all Ad-Valorem property taxes which he overpaid on his residence at 414 Eagle Drive, Raceland, Louisiana 70394, in the amount of $1,407.86, plus judicial interest thereon from the date of judicial demand. This calculation is based upon the assessment value in place at the time of filing this lawsuit.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that except for the cost of the Rule for Preliminary Injunction for which the Office of Assessor Wendy L. Thibodeaux has already been cast, Robert J. Theriot shall pay all other costs in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the claim made by Robert J. Theriot in the Supplemental and Amending Petition filed by him regarding the valuation of the property at 414 Eagle Drive, Raceland, Louisiana 70394, which issue was previously bifurcated, is dismissed, with prejudice and at the cost of Robert J. Theriot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this judgment does not address the validity of any reassessments of the property in question from the year 2021 through the present, or any amount claimed to be due as a result of said reassessment.

The Assessor filed the instant suspensive appeal, urging several assignments of error.

DISCUSSION

What is the Standard of Review for Homestead Exemptions?

Initially, we note that the jurisprudence of this state has consistently held that constitutional and statutory grants of exemptions from taxation must be strictly construed in favor of the taxing body and against the taxpayer desiring the exemption. Any possible doubt is fatal to the exemption. Thus, an exemption, being an exceptional privilege, must be clearly, unequivocally and affirmatively established. Metairie Country Club v. Louisiana Tax Com'n, 2003-0538 (La. App. 5th Cir. 10/28/03), 860 So.2d 165, 167-8, writ denied, 2003-3209 (La. 2/6/04), 865 So.2d 728, citing, Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Larpenter, 583 So.2d 867 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 589 So.2d 1071 (La. 1991).

Our resolution of this matter hinges on the interpretation of a constitutional provision and is therefore a question of law. Constitutional provisions are to be construed and interpreted by the same rules as other laws. When a constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous, its language must be given effect. The standard of review on a question of law is to determine whether the lower court's decision is legally correct or incorrect. Metairie Country Club, 860 So.2d at 168.

Article VII, Section 20(A)(1) of the Louisiana Constitution provides, in pertinent part:

The bona fide homestead, consisting of a tract of land or two or more tracts of land even if the land is classified and assessed at use value pursuant to Article VII, Section 18(C) of this constitution, [․] not exceeding one hundred sixty acres, buildings and appurtenances, whether rural or urban, owned or occupied by any person or persons owing the property in indivision, shall be exempt from state, parish, and special ad valorem taxes to the extent of seven thousand five hundred dollars of the assessed valuation. The same homestead exemption shall also fully apply to the primary residence, including a mobile home, which serves as a bona fide home and which is owned or and occupied by any person[.]

Further, Article VII, Section 20(A)(8) provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any provision of this Paragraph to the contrary, in no event shall more than one homestead exemption extend or apply to any person in this state.” Assessors in Louisiana have a duty to provide an application for homeowners to apply for a homestead exemption. La. R.S. 47:1703; La. R.S. 47:1703.1. As part of the application process, the homeowner applying for the exemption must show to the assessor that he or she qualifies for the exemption. Cooley v. Williams, 2022-0564 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1/30/23), 358 So.3d 127, 132, writ denied, 2023-00289 (La. 4/25/23), 359 So.3d 978. Nevertheless, a homestead exemption so claimed shall remain valid without necessity of renewal of the claim as long as the claimant and property qualify for the exemption. La. R.S. 47:1703.1(B).

Where is Mr. Theriot's Primary Residence for his Homestead Exemption?

This crux of this litigation, as well as most of the Assessor's assignments of error, all turn on one question: Whether Mr. Theriot's “primary residence” for purposes of the homestead exemption was located at 414 Eagle Drive, Raceland, Louisiana (the “Raceland Property”), or at 730 County Road 4650, Kirbyville, Texas (the “Texas Property”)?

On the first day of trial, November 17, 2023, Mr. Theriot testified that in 1994, his (now deceased) wife applied for, and was granted a homestead exemption on the Raceland Property. It is undisputed that Mr. Theriot has continually owned the Raceland Property since its purchase and was granted a homestead exemption on it by the Assessor from 1994 through 2020. Mr. Theriot stated he has lived at the Raceland Property, and considered it his home, since 1994. In 2008, Mr. Theriot purchased the Texas Property and was also granted a homestead exemption by a local tax assessment official in Newton County through 2020. Mr. Theriot sold the Texas Property in 2022.

Mr. Theriot testified that in March 2021, while owning both the Raceland Property and the Texas Property, he visited the Assessor's office to submit his application for a “disability freeze” and “senior freeze.” In support of his application, Mr. Theriot submitted his Texas driver's license, which he first obtained in 2008, shortly after purchasing the Texas Property, as well as his 2019 federal tax return, which identified the Texas Property as his home address. Mr. Theriot was also registered to vote in Texas, but testified that it was automatically done for him when he obtained a Texas driver's license. When asked whether he thought a Texas driver's license would “raise a flag – to the [Assessor], as to where [his] true residence is[,]” Mr. Theriot stated no, “because – every year prior to that, when I went in for my disability freeze, I produced a Texas driver's license. And not – at one time, did they question where I live.” Mr. Theriot testified that, after submitting his application, he received a letter from the Assessor informing him that his application was denied because of his ownership of the Texas Property and the homestead exemption he was receiving. Mr. Theriot indicated this was his first realization that he was receiving two homestead exemptions. After being denied the senior and disability tax freezes, Mr. Theriot did not attempt to reapply in 2022 or 2023, stating he thought it “was a waste of time since they didn't feel that I qualified for [a] homestead exemption.” As such, for the 2020 through 2023 taxable years, Mr. Theriot paid his property taxes under protest.

The Assessor testified that the protocol for the granting of a “disability freeze” is an approval letter from the Social Security Administration and/or Department of Veteran's Affairs, and that a driver's license is not required for this application. Regarding the “senior freeze,” the Assessor testified that a license is required, because the applicant must be over the age of sixty-five, and must also meet a certain income level, which is based on federal tax returns.⁴ The Assessor stated that, prior to March of 2021, Mr. Theriot had only applied for a “disability freeze,” so even if he submitted his Texas driver's license with his application, it would not have been noticed by her office staff as it was not a required item. However, in March of 2021, when Mr. Theriot inquired about the “senior freeze,” the Assessor's staff would be more aware of Mr. Theriot's permanent residence due to the submission of his driver's license and tax returns. The Assessor testified that, following Mr. Theriot's request for the “disability freeze” and “senior freeze” in March of 2021, her office researched what Mr. Theriot's actual residence was, and determined that, since 2010, Mr. Theriot's primary residence was the Texas Property. Specifically, the Assessor stated, “[․] the reason why I don't believe that Mr. Theriot is – qualifies for that exemption, all of – from 2010 forward, is because all of the research and the documentation – the SBA loan, the – voter registration, the driver's license, the federal tax return, all of that documentation pointed that his primary residence, it was in Kirbyville. It was in Texas.” The Assessor did acknowledge that it is outside the scope of her office to investigate whether Mr. Theriot was residing at the Raceland Property or the Texas Property. Nevertheless, the Assessor removed Mr. Theriot's homestead exemption on the Raceland Property, retroactive to 2010.

Two employees from the Assessor's office testified at trial. Richelle Roy, the Director of Administration, stated she conducted a search on Mr. Theriot through a joint database used by multiple governmental agencies, during which she was alerted to Mr. Theriot's Texas driver's license (and multiple renewals), voter registration, and vehicle registration. Additionally, Kaitlynn Edwards, the Deputy Assessor who received Mr. Theriot's application for the multiple tax freezes in March of 2021, testified that, upon receipt of Mr. Theriot's Texas driver's license, she inquired and was told that “he had lived in Texas years ago, and [that] he had never changed the ID.” Further, Edwards testified that in the exchange between her and Mr. Theriot, he told Edwards that he was residing in Raceland, and not in Texas.

Lastly, the transcript from the August 10, 2022 preliminary injunction hearing was introduced into evidence. Therein, a few individuals were called to testify by Mr. Theriot regarding their evaluation of where he resided. First, Elvera Ann Kinkle, Mr. Theriot's sister, testified that she visited the Texas Property, that it was not his primary residence, but was more akin to a camp. She testified Mr. Theriot's primary residence was in Raceland and that she never observed any evidence that might suggest the Raceland Property was not his primary residence. Second, John Kinkle, Mr. Theriot's brother-in-law, testified that he visited the Texas Property, which they called a “camp,” but that it was not Mr. Theriot's primary residence. Third, Hodges Folse, Jr., a friend of Mr. Theriot's, testified he visited the Raceland Property two to three times per month, and believed it was Mr. Theriot's primary residence. Mr. Folse testified he never visited the Texas Property. Lastly, O'Neil Theriot, Mr. Theriot's brother, testified he speaks with his brother on a regular basis since at least 2010 and knows that Mr. Theriot's primary residence is the Raceland Property since that time. While Mr. Theriot's brother did some remodeling work on the Texas Property, no one was living there, and everyone referred to it as a camp.

The trial court reconvened the matter for closing arguments and ruling on January 11, 2024, ruling that, based on the evidence presented, the actions of the Assessor in removing Mr. Theriot's homestead exemption was “correct and reasonable based upon the information that they had in their possession at the time.” The trial court further noted that it is not the Assessor's obligation to investigate applications for property tax freezes and exemptions. However, the trial court continued, stating that the totality of the evidence “clearly establishes that Mr. Theriot's primary residence was and has always been, in this [c]ourt's opinion, in Lafourche Parish since the years in question, 2010 through present.” While the trial court did note that the evidence presented by Mr. Theriot “to try and explain [away]” his Texas driver's license, voter registration, etc. is “high[ly] suggestive of either fraud or gross negligence,” the trial court concluded that was beyond the scope of its jurisdiction: “I'm not a Texas court. All right. I am a Louisiana court. I'm a Lafourche Parish court. I'm simply here to address whether or not [a] homestead exemption is proper here in Lafourche Parish.”

We agree with the trial court. While Mr. Theriot has clearly traveled and purchased many properties in his life, we find no indication to suggest that the Raceland Property was not his primary residence since 2010, if not longer. We find no merit to the Assessor's arguments to the contrary on appeal. Further, we make no determination about the appropriateness of the Assessor initially removing the homestead exemption on the Raceland Property, but agree with the trial court that the preponderance of the evidence presented at trial establishes Mr. Theriot's primary residence as the Raceland Property.

ANSWER TO APPEAL

Mr. Theriot filed an answer to the instant appeal, challenging the trial court's assessment of costs, seeking an award of attorney's fees from this court for an alleged frivolous appeal, and requesting the removal of the last paragraph of the judgment signed on April 22, 2025, following remand by this court. Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2133, an answer to an appeal is in the character of a cross appeal, in which the appellee takes advantage of an appeal entered and perfected by an appellant, in the hope of procuring an alteration or amendment of the judgment rendered in a manner beneficial to the appellee. Nicaud v. Nicaud, 2016-1531 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/15/17), 227 So.3d 329, 330.

Regarding Mr. Theriot's request to modify court costs, we note that a trial court has great discretion in matters relating to the assessment of costs, and an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's fixing of costs absent an abuse of the sound discretion afforded to it. Williams v. Leeper, 2021-1177 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/8/22), 341 So.3d 850, 856; see also Adams v. Rhodia, Inc., 2007-0897 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/13/09), 5 So.3d 288, 289 (“[t]he trial court may even assess costs against a party who prevails to some extent on the merits”). As such, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its assessment of costs, and therefore decline to modify the trial court's April 22, 2025 judgment in this regard.

Turning to Mr. Theriot's request for an award of attorney's fees due to an alleged frivolous appeal, we note that appeals are favored, and damages will not be awarded unless they are clearly due. See La. C.C.P. art. 2164. Damages for frivolous appeal are only allowed when it is obvious that the appeal was taken solely for delay, or that counsel is not sincere in the view of the law he advocates. The slightest justification for an appeal precludes damages for frivolous appeal. Benoist v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, 2022-0879 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/1/23), 362 So.3d 957, 963. After considering the Assessor's arguments made before this court on appeal, we decline to assess damages for frivolous appeal.

Lastly, Mr. Theriot requests removal of the last paragraph of the April 22, 2025 judgment, which states: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this judgment does not address the validity of any reassessments of the property in question from the year 2021 through the present, or any amount claimed to be due as a result of said reassessment.” Here, we agree with Mr. Theriot. The issue of property tax reassessments on Mr. Theriot's Raceland residence following 2021 was not litigated before the trial court; this paragraph was only added following this court's remand. We are aware the Assessor attempted to provide evidence regarding any alleged reassessment at the April 22, 2025 hearing, but the trial court correctly precluded such evidence, stating it is “beyond the scope of these proceedings.” We agree. Accordingly, we grant Mr. Theriot's answer to appeal in part to amend the April 22, 2025 judgment by deleting the final paragraph therein.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we amend that portion of the April 22, 2025 judgment pertaining to overpaid ad valorem property taxes to provide that Mr. Theriot is to be reimbursed by Craig Webre, in his capacity as Sheriff of Lafourche Parish. We further grant Mr. Theriot's answer to appeal in part by deleting the final paragraph of the trial court's April 22, 2025 judgment and affirm the judgment as amended. Additionally, pursuant to La. R.S. 47:1998(C), we are unable to assess costs associated with this appeal to the losing party, Wendy L. Thibodeaux, in her capacity as Assessor of Lafourche Parish, and we decline to assess these costs to Robert J. Theriot.

ANSWER TO APPEAL GRANTED IN PART; JUDGMENT AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

FOOTNOTES

2.   In the interim, Mr. Theriot sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Sheriff from including the property in a scheduled tax sale, which was granted by the trial court.

3.   Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2164, this court “shall render any judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal.” The judgment before us orders reimbursement by the “Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office.” As previously noted, Craig Webre, in his capacity as Sheriff of Lafourche Parish, was named as a defendant in this matter. It would be inappropriate to permit the judgment to stand as written as the “Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office” is neither a party nor a juridical person capable of being sued. Slocum v. Litchfield, 2007-0006 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/8/07), 964 So.2d 1006, 1007, writ denied, 2007-1412 (La. 10/5/07), 964 So.2d 943. Based on our review of the record, it is obvious that the trial court's intent was to cast the Sheriff in judgment. Thus, we amend the judgment accordingly to order that Mr. Theriot shall be reimbursed by Craig Webre, in his official capacity of Sheriff of Lafourche Parish.

4.   As explained by the Assessor, the “disability freeze” and “senior freeze” maintain the value of the property such that it is, generally, not increased through reassessment.

WOLFE, J.