JOHN TOERNER v. LOUIS FITZMORRIS IN HIS CAPACITY AS ST TAMMANY PARISH ASSESSOR RANDY SMITH IN HIS CAPACITY AS EX OFFICIO TAX COLLECTOR AND THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION (2026)

The defendants appeal the following judgments of the district court: (1) a judgment granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an interlocutory judgment denying an exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) an interlocutory judgment denying an exception raising the objection of prescription. For the following reasons, we reverse, vacate, and render.

BACKGROUND FACTS

This matter arises from a tax dispute involving the valuation of certain immovable properties (“the property”)² acquired by the plaintiff, John G. Toerner, at a tax sale in 2017. Mr. Toerner acquired a tax sale certificate, which was recorded in the conveyance records of St. Tammany Parish on August 10, 2017. Mr. Toerner did not pay the 2017 taxes on the property, resulting in the property going to tax sale in July 2018 and being sold to Edison Enterprises Union Bank (“Edison”). Neither Mr. Toerner nor Edison paid the 2018 taxes on the property, and the property went to tax sale again on July 29, 2019. The property was adjudicated to St. Tammany Parish, as no one bid on the property.

On June 23, 2021, Mr. Toerner redeemed the taxes assessed plus interest, cost, and penalties on the property for 2017 by paying the total of $13,300.87 to the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff in his capacity as ex-officio tax collector (“the Sheriff’). Mr. Toerner's check to the Sheriff included a “scratched through” notation that stated, “Paid Under Protest - Assessment value was too high[.]” On October 28, 2021, Mr. Toerner obtained a Judgment Quieting Tax Title, and he redeemed the taxes assessed plus interest, costs, and penalties on the property for the years 2018 through 2021 by paying the Sheriff, under protest, the total amount due ($39,143.09).

At some point, Mr. Toerner filed a request with the St. Tammany Parish Assessor (“the Assessor”) to have the assessed property value reviewed. After the review, the Assessor determined the fair market value of the property in 2020 was $123,000.00. Based on the reassessment of the fair market value of the property, the Assessor filed change order numbers 2250 and 1958 with the Louisiana Tax Commission on February 24, 2022, for the 2020 and 2021 tax years. The change orders were approved by the Tax Commission on March 10, 2022. The Sheriff issued Mr. Toerner refunds for the amounts that were overassessed for 2020 in the amount of $6,304.03 and for 2021 in the amount of $6,310.70. However, no interest was refunded to Mr. Toerner.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Toerner filed a Claim for Refund or Credit of Taxes Paid in Error (“Claim for Refund”) with the Tax Commission on or about June 23, 2022. Therein, Mr. Toerner alleged (1) the Assessor has not identified the location of all parcels assessed; and (2) the Assessor failed to assess the property based on use value and/or overvalued the property. The Chief Deputy Assessor for St. Tammany Parish, Troy Dugas, provided a written response to the Tax Commission, in which he determined that Mr. Toerner was not due a refund or credit for taxes erroneously paid. Agreeing with Mr. Dugas's written response, the Tax Commission denied Mr. Toerner's Claim for Refund on July 29, 2022.

On August 24, 2022, Mr. Toerner filed a “Petition for Refund of Taxes” in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, naming as defendants the Assessor, the Sheriff, and the Tax Commission.³ Mr. Toerner averred the property was overassessed for tax years 2017 through 2021 because the Assessor did not consider that the property consists of more than three acres of landlocked, timberland property. Mr. Toerner prayed there be judgment in his favor finding that the property was overvalued and overassessed for tax years 2017 through 2021; that he erroneously overpaid the taxes assessed on the property for the tax years 2017 through 2021; and that he be refunded the amount determined by the court to have been overpaid with interest, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees.⁴

The Assessor filed an exception raising the objection of prescription. Mr. Toerner opposed the exception, and the district court denied it. After the Assessor answered the “Petition for Refund of Taxes”, Mr. Toerner filed a motion for summary judgment. Prior to the district court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the Assessor filed an exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Toerner opposed that exception as well. The district court signed a judgment denying the exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction on October 23, 2024. In a separate judgment, signed October 25, 2024, the district court granted Mr. Toerner's motion for summary judgment.⁵

From this judgment, the Assessor appeals. The Assessor also appeals the denials of the exceptions raising the objections of prescription and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.⁶

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Subject matter jurisdiction 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. Code Civ. P. art. 2. The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action or proceeding is created by the constitution or by legislative enactment and critical to the case before us, unlike venue, the parties cannot confer or waive it. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 3. A judgment rendered by a court which has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or proceeding is void. La. Code Civ. P. art. 3; see also § 2:2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter, 1 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Civil Procedure § 2:2 (2d ed.), Frank L. Maraist.

Generally, a district court shall have original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters and shall have appellate jurisdiction as provided by law. La. Const, art. V, § 16. The grant of original jurisdiction refers to judicial adjudications in the first instance and designates the adjudicative tribunal in which the initial adjudication is made. Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 2011-1935 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/25/12), 97 So.3d 1148, 1150, writ denied, 2012-1926 (La. 11/9/12), 100 So.3d 842. Conversely, the grant of appellate jurisdiction is limited, and district courts have appellate jurisdiction only as expressly provided by the constitution or a statute. Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Inc. v. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 2019-1551 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/23/20), 314 So.3d 841, 847. Further, the existence of a specific statutory procedure generally implies a legislative intent that the special statutory procedure be the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review in the situations where it applies. Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Inc., 314 So.3d at 847; see also Quatrevingt v. State through Landry, 2017-0884 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/8/18), 242 So.3d 625, 636, writ denied, 2018-0391 (La. 4/27/18), 239 So.3d 837.

In accord with these precepts, subject matter jurisdiction for judicial review of tax correctness challenges was created by the Louisiana Constitution and Revised Statutes. Louisiana Constitution Article VII, § 1 vests the power of taxation in the legislature, and Article VII, § 3(A) mandates that the legislature “provide a complete and adequate remedy for the prompt recovery of an illegal tax paid by a taxpayer.” See St. Martin v. State, 2009-0935 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So.3d 736, 738.

Louisiana Constitution article VII, § 18(E) specifically provides for review of correctness challenges to property tax assessments by the assessor, as follows:

Review. The correctness of assessments by the assessor shall be subject to review first by the parish governing authority, then by the Louisiana Tax Commission or its successor, and finally by the courts, all in accordance with procedures established by law. [Emphasis added.]

Our Supreme Court has held that, pursuant to La. Const. art. VII, § 18, the district court in correctness challenges are merely granted appellate jurisdiction.⁷ See Gisclair v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 2009-0007 (La. 6/26/09), 16 So.3d 1132, 1136.

To fulfill its obligation to provide a remedy for the taxpayer, the legislature enacted Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:2132, the applicable procedure governing property tax assessment challenges, which provides that “any person who has a claim against a political subdivision for statutory impositions erroneously paid into the funds of that political subdivision may present the claim to the [Louisiana Tax Commission.]” La. R.S. 47:2132(A). The Tax Commission has original jurisdiction over correctness challenges.⁸ ANR Pipeline Co. v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 2002-1479 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1145, 1149.

The appeal of the Tax Commission's decision is governed by Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:2132(D), which provides:

An action of the assessor or of the tax commission rejecting or refusing to approve any claim made under the provisions of this Section may be appealed by means of ordinary proceedings to the Board of Tax Appeals or to the district court having jurisdiction where the property which is the subject of the claim is located.9 [Emphasis added.]

Thus, in accord with the Louisiana Constitution and established statutory scheme, following the Tax Commission's denial of Mr. Toerner's claim for refund, Mr. Toerner was required to appeal the Tax Commission's decision to the Board of Tax Appeals or the district court having jurisdiction where the property is located, i.e., the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court in and for St. Tammany Parish, pursuant to La. R.S. 47:2132(D). Instead, Mr. Toerner appealed the Tax Commissioner's denial of his correctness challenge to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.

As set forth above, where the law affords a procedure specifically directed toward the refund of tax payments, the existence of a specific statutory procedure generally implies a legislative intent that the special statutory procedure be the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review in the situations to which it applies. St Martin, 25 So.3d at 740.¹⁰

Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:2132(D) prescribed the exclusive means for an appeal of the Tax Commission's decision. Where appellate jurisdiction was not conferred to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, we reverse the district court's judgment overruling the Assessor's exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and find that the Nineteenth Judicial District Court lacked authority to hear this appeal, i.e., it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Since the Nineteenth Judicial District Court lacked jurisdiction, this court likewise lacks jurisdiction. As such, we vacate the district court's judgment to correct the error. See Lowe v. Parish of St. Tammany, 2017-0783 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1/23/18), 241 So.3d 1035, 1037. Accordingly, pursuant to the above procedure created by the constitution and legislative enactment, we reverse the district court's judgment overruling the Assessor's exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and find that the Board of Tax Appeals or the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court in and for St. Tammany Parish had subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Toerner's appeal of the Tax Commission's denial of his correctness challenge, which cannot be waived by the parties or conferred by the parties; recognize the Nineteenth Judicial District Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this case; and vacate all judgments rendered by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court.

We further note that the parties were not litigating in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in a manner consistent with judicial review of an administrative decision. Although a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription may be raised on appeal, pursuant to La. Const, art. VII, § 18, district courts presented with correctness challenges are merely granted appellate jurisdiction. Gisclair, 16 So.3d at 1136. Again, in the instant case, the Tax Commission exercised original jurisdiction over the correctness challenge.¹¹ See ANR Pipeline Co., 851 So.2d at 1149 (“[C]orrectness challenges are subject to review under La. Const. [a]rt. 7, § 18(E) by the parish governing authority and the [Louisiana Tax Commission] before being reviewed by Louisiana courts[.]” (Footnote omitted.)). Accordingly, in its judicial review of the Tax Commission's denial of Mr. Toerner's correction challenge, the district court had no authority to entertain a motion for summary judgment. See La. Const. art. VII, § 18; Gisclair, 16 So.3d at 1136.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's October 25, 2024 judgment granting plaintiff-appellee, John G. Toerner's motion for summary judgment is vacated. The district court's October 23, 2024 judgment denying the peremptory exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by defendant-appellant Louis Fitzmorris, in his capacity as St. Tammany Parish Assessor, is reversed. We render judgment sustaining the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss John G. Toerner's “Petition for Refund of Taxes.” The district court's December 16, 2022 judgment denying the peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription filed by defendant-appellant Louis Fitzmorris, in his capacity as St. Tammany Parish Assessor, is also vacated. All costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellee, John G. Toerner.

OCTOBER 23, 2024 JUDGMENT REVERSED; OCTOBER 25, 2024 JUDGMENT VACATED AND RENDERED; DECEMBER 16, 2022 JUDGMENT VACATED.

I agree with the majority herein and further assign additional reasons.

The notion that review by the district court of an administrative determination was not a judicial appeal, but rather an invocation of original judicial jurisdiction, was dispelled in Loop, Inc. v. Collector of Revenue, 523 So. 2d 201, 202-203 n.1 (La. 1987) (“[W]here the legislature has provided a reasonable procedure for obtaining judicial review of a particular agency decision, an individual litigant must follow such procedure in order to obtain review.”) Therein, the Supreme Court recognized that under the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, a legislative act establishing procedures for a district court's review of an administrative tribunal decision should be considered to be a law providing the district court with appellate jurisdiction. See Martin v. Board of Adjustment Through Chairman, 2023-0658 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/23/24), 387 So. 3d 17, 21 n.7; see also Brown v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2000-0539 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/22/01), 804 So. 2d 41, 45, writ denied, 803 So. 2d 37 (La. 2001); Matter of American Waste & Pollution Control Co., 588 So. 2d 367, 370 (La. 1991).

Moreover, herein the majority and dissent agree that this case presents a correctness challenge. Constitutionally mandated review for correctness challenges of property tax assessments by the assessor has been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court—courts in correctness challenges are merely granted appellate jurisdiction. See La. Const, art. VII, § 18(E); Gisclair v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 2009-0007 (La. 6/26/09), 16 So. 3d 1132,1136; ANR Pipeline Co. v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 2002-1479 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So. 2d 1145, 1149; Triangle Marine, Inc. v. Savoie, 95-2873 (La. 10/15/96), 681 So. 2d 937, 939. “[T]he [Louisiana Tax Commission] has original jurisdiction over correctness challenges, while the district court has original jurisdiction over legality challenges ․ The district court has only appellate jurisdiction over correctness challenges.” ANR Pipeline Co., 851 So. 2d at 1149, citing Triangle Marine, Inc., 681 So. 2d at 939. “[W]e find in accord with over a hundred years of this Court's jurisprudence that plaintiffs petition sets forth a challenge to the correctness of the tax assessment over which district courts do not have original subject matter jurisdiction.” Gisclair, 16 So. 3d at 1134.

Even if we entertained the idea that this case involves an issue of venue, when such venue cannot be waived, it is jurisdictional. Venue is waivable in all cases, except where venue is made jurisdictional by a specific statute. See Cheramie v. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc., 95-0038, (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/6/95), 671 So. 2d 489, 491; Boyer v. Boyer, 96-0346 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1/23/97), 691 So. 2d 1234, 1244, writ denied, 97-1415 (La. 9/26/97), 701 So. 2d 984. Non-waivable jurisdiction equates to jurisdiction rationae materiae, or subject matter jurisdiction. In re Interdiction of Watts, 2004-2166 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/6/05), 903 So. 2d 552, 555, citing Succession of Guitar, 197 So. 2d 921, 924 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1967).

An action of the assessor or of the tax commission rejecting or refusing to approve any claim made under the provisions of this Section may be appealed by means of ordinary proceedings to the Board of Tax Appeals or to the district court having jurisdiction where the property which is the subject of the claim is located. [Emphasis added.]

La.R.S. 47:2132(D).

Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:2132(D) prescribed the exclusive means for an appeal of the Tax Commission's decision. This matter must be brought where the property is located. I find no authority which suggests that this requirement may be waived.

According to La. Const, art. VII, § 18(E), “The correctness of assessments by the assessor shall be subject to review first by the parish governing authority, then by the Louisiana Tax Commission or its successor, and finally by the courts, all in accordance with procedures established by law.” The “procedures established by law” that are relevant to this lawsuit are contained in La. R.S. 47:2132(D), which provides that “an action of the Tax Commission rejecting or refusing to approve a correctness challenge may be appealed by means of ordinary proceedings to the Board of Tax Appeals or to the district court having jurisdiction where the property which is the subject of the claim is located.” Therefore, the majority accurately notes that the Louisiana Tax Commission has original jurisdiction over correctness challenges, and the Board of Tax Appeals and the district courts of this state are granted appellate jurisdiction. See Gisclair v. Louisiana Tax Comm'n, 2009-0007 (La. 6/26/09), 16 So.3d 1132, 1136.

When a party aggrieved by a final agency decision in an adjudication proceeding appeals to the district court granted appellate jurisdiction, as is required by La. R.S. 47:2132(D), the district court acts in the capacity of an intermediate appellate court. See Nola Bourbon, LLC v. City of New Orleans, 2019-0847 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/29/20), 290 So.3d 225, 227 (quoting DMK Acquisitions & Properties, L.L.C. v. City of New Orleans, 2013-0405 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/18/13), 124 So.3d 1157, 1163). The manner in which the appellate court reviews the agency's decision depends on statutory pronouncement.

In the absence of specific provisions relative to the standard of judicial review to be applied by courts in reviewing a decision by an agency, the general provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) apply. See La. R.S. 49:978.1(F) (“The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record.”); Metro Riverboat Associates, Inc. v. Louisiana Gaming Control Bd., 2001-0185 (La. 10/16/01), 797 So.2d 656, 660 (“[T]he APA was not intended to supersede the more specific provision of other administrative acts; rather, it was intended to create procedures in those instances where none exist.”). In addition, many statutes explicitly require the review of state agency actions to be to be conducted by the court without a jury and confined to the record. See, e.g., La. R.S. 15:1177 (judicial review by incarcerated persons of administrative acts by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections is confined to the record); La. R.S. 33:101.1 (judicial review of an act approving or disapproving a subdivision plat by planning commissions is confined to the record); La. R.S. 49:214.35 (judicial review of actions of the secretary of the Department of Conservation and Energy shall be pursuant to the APA); La. R.S. 42:1143 (judicial review of rulings of the State Board of Ethics is conducted in accordance with the APA).

In contrast, La. R.S. 47:2132(D), which the majority agrees is applicable here, states that the appeal of the Tax Commission's decision on a correctness challenge may be appealed “by means of ordinary proceeding[.]”¹ (Emphasis added.) The legislature, in enacting La. R.S. 47:2132, rejected the “general” rules of judicial review of agency decisions. If the legislature wished judicial review of the Tax Commission's decisions rejecting or refusing to approve a correctness challenge to be confined to the record, it would have done so. To conclude that the district court in this case was not acting “in a manner consistent with judicial review of an administrative decision” directly contradicts one of the most basic tenets of Louisiana law—that when a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written. See La. C.C. art. 9; Matter of Succession of Margiotta, 2023 -01416 (La. 1/24/24), 3 77 So.3d 672, 674.

Unfortunately, the majority's misinterpretation of the applicable law does not stop there. The majority also concludes that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Toerner's correctness challenge. I disagree.

Subject matter jurisdiction 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.C.P. art. 2. The district courts of this state were granted subject matter jurisdiction over correctness challenges by La. Const, art. VII, § 18(E). Correctness challenges are further governed by La. R.S. 47:2132, which provides that an action of the Tax Commission rejecting or refusing to approve a correctness challenge “may be appealed by means of ordinary proceedings to the Board of Tax Appeals or to the district court having jurisdiction where the property which is the subject of the claim is located.” See La. R.S. 47:2132(D). When reading these provisions together, it is clear La. Const. art. VII, § 18(E) confers subject matter jurisdiction (the legal power or authority to adjudicate and decide the matter) to all district courts (as well as the Board of Tax Appeals), and La. R.S. 47:2132 establishes the proper venue (the place where the action is to be brought and adjudicated) for such actions.

Venue is a procedural matter unrelated to substantive causes of action. Wooley, 944 So.2d at 676. Venue relates to the parish where an action or proceeding may properly be brought and tried. See La. C.C.P. art. 41. Thus, venue refers to the place where the action is to be brought and adjudicated, while jurisdiction relates to the legal power or authority of a court to adjudicate and decide the matter and to render judgment against a party to that action. Tillis v. McNeil, 2017-673 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/30/18), 249 So.3d 303, 307; see also Senior v. Overlog, Inc., 2024-0541 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/21/25), 414 So.3d 965, 979 (quoting Luffey ex rel. Fredericksburg Props, of Tx., LP v. Fredericksburg Props, of Tx., LP, 37,591 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d 403, 406 n.3).

In Bailey v. Enervest Operating Co., LLC, 45,553 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/30/10), 43 So.3d 1046, the Second Circuit considered the nature of a different provision of the tax code, La. R.S. 47:1998(A)(1)(a), which states that any taxpayer or bona fide representative of an affected tax-recipient body in the state dissatisfied with the final determination of the Tax Commission under the provisions of La. R.S. 47:1989 ² shall have the right to institute suit “in the parish where the Louisiana Tax Commission is domiciled or the district court of the parish where the property is located” (Emphasis added). The Second Circuit determined that La. R.S. 47:1998 provides a “specific venue provision,” and under that specific venue provision, the venue of the matter before it was proper in the Fourth Judicial District Court, which is the district court of the parish where the property was located. Bailey, 43 So.3d at 1052. One year after Bailey, this court also characterized La. R.S. 47:1998 as a statute governing “venue for appeals” from final determinations of the Tax Commission pursuant to La. R.S. 47:1989. See Jefferson Island Storage & Hub, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Comm'n, 2011-0882 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/15/11), 70 So.3d 1034, 1040.

At oral argument, Toerner stated that he filed this lawsuit in the 19th JDC because he (erroneously) believed he could file suit where the defendant, the Louisiana Tax Commission, is domiciled. Suits against the state or state agencies are governed by general venue provisions for the state or state agencies found in La. R.S. 13:5104 unless a more specific venue is found elsewhere in the Revised Statutes. See Colvin v. Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Bd., 2006-1104 (La. 1/17/07), 947 So.2d 15, 22. Pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5104(A), the general venue for suits against the Louisiana Tax Commission is “before the district court of the judicial district in which the state capitol is located or in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises.” In addition, if the APA's judicial review provisions applied to this case, as the majority incorrectly suggests, the proper venue is “in the district court of the parish in which the agency is located.” La. R.S. 49:978.1(B). Of course, this would only be the case if the Revised Statutes did not contain a more specific venue provision. See Bailey, 43 So.3d at 1052.

The 19th JDC is an incorrect forum for Toerner's lawsuit not because the 19th JDC does not have subject matter jurisdiction over correctness challenges. To espouse such a conclusion would render the 19th JDC an improper forum over the subject matter of this lawsuit—a correctness challenge—even those concerning property in East Baton Rouge Parish.³ See La. C.C.P. art. 2. Rather, the 19th JDC is an incorrect forum because the 19th JDC is an improper venue. Just like La. R.S. 13:5104 and 47:1998(A)(1)(a), La. R.S. 47:2132(D), which boasts nearly identical language, also provides a specific venue provision.

In this case, Toerner filed his lawsuit in the 19th JDC although it is undisputed that the “district court having jurisdiction where the property which is the subject of the claim is located” is the 22nd JDC. Having concluded La. R.S. 47:2132(D) is specific venue provision, it is clear Toerner filed his lawsuit in an improper venue. Nevertheless, venue can be waived. See La. C.C.P. art. 44(C). An objection to venue is properly raised through declinatory exception and must be raised prior to or in the answer and prior to or along with any other exceptions. See La. C.C.P. arts. 925(A)(4) & 928(A). All objections that may be raised through the declinatory exception are waived unless pleaded therein. See La. C.C.P. arts. 925(C) & 928(A). In this case, the Assessor's objection to venue ⁴ was filed on September 22, 2023, after he filed his objection of prescription on October 25, 2022, and after he filed his answer on January 25, 2023. Since the Assessor failed to file the declinatory exception raising the objection of venue prior to or in the answer and prior to or along with any other exceptions, any objection to venue is waived. See La. C.C.P. art. 925(C). For the aforementioned reasons, I find no error in the district court's judgment overruling the Assessor's “Peremptory Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.” Accordingly, I would consider the remainder of the Assessor's assignments of error in this appeal.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The property consists of 41 separate lots.

3.   Mr. Toerner's claims for damages against the Tax Commission were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action. Later, the Tax Commission filed a response to Mr. Toerner's motion for summary judgment to clarify that it “takes no position with regard to the dispute between the Plaintiff-Taxpayer and the Defendant-Assessor” and “is merely a nominal, albeit necessary, party per La. R.S. 47:2134 in this litigation.” At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, counsel for the Sheriff represented to the district court that the Tax Commission is “already out of the case[.]”

4.   Mr. Toerner later admitted he has already received a refund due for the overvaluation of the property for 2020 and 2021.

5.   The Assessor filed a motion for new trial of the October 23, 2024 judgment denying the exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion for new trial.

6.   The court may consider interlocutory judgments as part of an unrestricted appeal from a final judgment. Songy v. Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC, 2020-0860 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/19/21), 320 So.3d 434, 439 n.7, writ denied, 2021-00412 (La. 5/11/21), 315 So.3d 869.

7.   See also La. Const. art. V, § 16(B) (A district court shall have appellate jurisdiction as provided by law.).

8.   The Louisiana Tax Commission has original jurisdiction over a correctness challenge, while the district court has original jurisdiction over legality challenges. Northwestern Louisiana Cancer Center, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 2025-00833 (La. 11/5/25), 421 So.3d 964 (per curiam), citing Triangle Marine, Inc. v. Savoie, 95-2873 (La. 10/15/96), 681 So.2d 937, 939; Gisclair, 16 So.3d at 1136. Correctness challenges are directed at issues of regularity or correctness of the assessment, such as over-valuation and misdescription, while legality challenges are directed at issues involving claims that the assessment is void for radical defects that bring into question the existence of any valid assessment. Gisclair, 16 So.3d at 1136.

9.   To the extent that Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:2132(D) provides that an action of the assessor or tax commission may be “appealed by means of ordinary proceedings,” we are unaware of any distinction between an appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals or to the district court and an appeal by means of ordinary proceedings to the Board of Tax Appeals or to the district court.

10.   See also Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Inc., 314 So.3d 841, 847 (When the agency statute upon which a litigant relies establishes a specific procedure for judicial review of the agency's action, a litigant may invoke the reviewing court's jurisdiction only by following the statutorily-prescribed procedure, unless there can be found within the act a genuine legislative intent to authorize judicial review by other means.).

11.   We note that, by definition, “[v]enue means the parish where an action or proceeding may properly be brought and tried under the rules regulating the subject.” La. Code Civ. P. art. 41 (emphasis added). In the instant case, the district court is merely granted appellate jurisdiction for judicial review of the tax commission's decision; it is not exercising original jurisdiction to bring and try this matter. See La. R.S. 47:2132(D); Gisclair, 16 So.3d at 1136; ANR Pipeline Co., 851 So.2d at 1149. The very idea that one can select a parish of their choosing to exercise appellate review of the correctness of a tax assessment of property located and assessed in one parish in another, presumably more favorable, parish would undermine the deliberately worded jurisdictional provisions reflecting clearly expressed legislative policy. Such construction would not ensure that legislative preferences for reviewing particular actions in particular forums would be respected. Cf. Loop, Inc. v. Collector of Revenue, 523 So.2d 201, 204 (La. 1987), on rehearing.

1.   Ordinary proceedings are those to be used “in the district courts in all cases” except as otherwise provided by law. La. C.C.P. art. 851. The rules governing ordinary proceedings appear in Book II of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure and set requirements for pleading (including motion practice); citation and service; and a right to conduct discovery in preparation for trial. The Board of Tax Appeals, one of the two permissible forums for appealing a decision of the Tax Commission under La. R.S. 47:2132(D), indeed operates in this fashion. According to its website, the Board of Tax Appeals is “an independent quasi-judicial entity that comprises three attorney members who are tax law experts.” See www.labta.louisiana.gov (last accessed May 27, 2026). The rules of the Board of Tax Appeals also appear on its website. See www.labta.louisiana.gov/rules.html (last accessed May 27, 2026). Among other things, the Board's rules detail procedure for pleading and motion practice, which are generally consistent with the rules of ordinary proceedings contained in Book II of the Code of Civil Procedure. See Id.

2.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:1989(A) states, “Within ten days of receipt of the assessment lists as certified by the local board of review, the tax commission shall conduct public hearings to hear real and personal property appeals of taxpayers, bona fide representatives of an affected tax-recipient body, or assessors, from the action of the board of review.” Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:1998 pertains to judicial review of such decisions. I note that neither the parties nor the majority contends La. R.S. 47:1989 or 1998 are applicable here.

3.   I am unaware of any Constitutional provision or state statute that confers subject matter jurisdiction based on territorial jurisdiction of a court or quasi-judicial tribunal, which is what the majority suggests. In fact, territorial jurisdiction relates to geography, and geographic boundaries present a venue issue. See Jones v. Lewis, 2023-0860 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/26/24), 390 So.3d 876, 878; Tillis v. McNeil, 2017-673 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/30/18), 249 So.3d 303, 308; O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. v. White, 55,520 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/24), 384 So.3d 1194, 1209 n.6; Tree Guardian USA, LLC v. Hood, 2024-645 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/21/25), 2025 WL 1467504, *3 (unpublished). It is well-established that territorial jurisdiction is unrelated to subject matter jurisdiction.

4.   Although the Assessor titled his exception “Peremptory Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction[,]” pleadings are taken for what they actually are and not for what their authors designate them. State, Dept. of Children and Family Services ex rel. A.L. v. Lowrie, 2014-1025 (La. 5/5/15), 167 So.3d 573, 578.

FIELDS, J.

Haggerty, J. concurs with majority and agrees with additional reasons by J. Miller. Miller, J. agrees and assigns additional reasons. Edwards, J. dissents and assigns reasons.