JOHNESE SMITH v. LINDA HOLMES JOHNSON HER HEIRS ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS (2026)

Plaintiff-appellant, Johnese L. Smith (“Smith”), appeals the district court's December 2, 2025 judgment recognizing and confirming her ownership of an undivided 1% interest in immovable property located at 2418 Gordon Street in New Orleans. Smith contends that the expiration of the applicable redemption and annulment periods entitled her to recognition as owner of the entire property. No brief was filed on behalf of Defendant-appellee, Linda Holmes Johnson (“Johnson”), in this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2012, the City of New Orleans offered tax sale title to the property for delinquent ad valorem taxes and related charges. The sale was conducted by bidding down the undivided interest to be acquired. The recorded tax sale certificate identifies Smith as the purchaser of “tax sale title to 1% of the whole of the property or the undivided interest of the tax debtor therein.” A contemporaneous CivicSource notice likewise advised Smith: “Your bid of 1% on the property 2418 Gordon St[.] is now the new winning bid.”

On May 13, 2025, Smith filed a petition to quiet the tax sale title and requested recognition as sole owner of the property. After efforts to serve Johnson personally were unsuccessful, the district court appointed a curator ad hoc. The curator answered the petition and later reported that he had contacted Johnson.

Following a November 20, 2025 hearing, the district court rendered judgment in Smith's favor and against Johnson. The December 2, 2025 written judgment recognizes Smith as owner of 1% of the property, confirms and quiets that ownership, and declares that Johnson and her successors, heirs, or assigns have no further right, title, or claim in that 1% interest. Smith timely appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The interpretation of a statute and the determination of its legal effect present questions of law, which we review de novo. S. Yacht Club v. Zeno, 12-1309, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/27/13), 112 So.3d 942, 944 (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Smith raises four assignments of error. She argues that the district court erred by limiting the judgment to 1% because the redemptive and annulment periods had elapsed, Johnson did not challenge the sale or possess the property, and Smith allegedly paid later taxes, maintained the property, and possessed it for approximately thirteen years. She also contends that the district court awarded the remaining 99% to Johnson or failed to determine who possesses that interest. Because the assignments turn on the extent of the interest conveyed by the tax sale, we address them together.

Former La. R.S. 47:2153(B)(5), which governed the 2012 sale, provided for bidding by undivided interests. It expressly stated the following: “The tax sale shall convey, and the purchaser shall take, tax sale title in the undivided interest bid in the entirety of the property․ .” Former La. R.S. 47:2266 supplied procedures for confirming the purchaser's title and full ownership interest after the governing periods had elapsed. Those provisions confirmed the interest acquired, and they did not enlarge its percentage.

This Court addressed the same question in Johnson v. Palazzo, 22-0502 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/7/22), 353 So.3d 1022. There, as in the case sub judice, the tax sale certificate reflected a winning bid of 1%. The district court nevertheless confirmed the purchaser's ownership of the entire property. We held that the purchaser acquired the undivided percentage bid and that confirmation could not enlarge that interest from 1% to 100%. Id., pp. 4-6, 353 So.3d at 1024-25. We therefore affirmed confirmation of the tax sale only to the extent of the interest purchased, vacated the award of 100% ownership, and remanded for entry of a judgment reflecting the 1% interest stated in the certificate. Id., pp. 6-7, 353 So.3d at 1025.

Johnson followed Montana v. Jordan, 13-1410 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/26/14), 135 So.3d 1212. In Montana, we explained that a judgment confirming tax sale title cannot convey a greater interest than the tax sale certificate. The statutory reference to “full ownership” changes the nature of the purchaser's rights in the interest acquired, not the percentage held in indivision. Id., p. 7, 135 So.3d at 1216-17.

The recorded certificate in the case sub judice twice identifies the interest Smith purchased as 1%, and the auction notice confirms that her winning bid was 1%. Under the certificate, the governing statute, and this Court's decisions, Smith acquired tax sale title to an undivided 1% interest. The expiration of the periods for redemption or annulment affected the finality of that title; it did not increase the percentage conveyed. The older authorities on which Smith relies concern whether a tax sale may be attacked after the applicable period. They do not hold that the passage of time enlarges the undivided interest actually sold.

Contrary to Smith's assertion, the judgment did not award the remaining 99% to Johnson or determine who owns that interest. It adjudicated only the 1% interest established by Smith's tax sale certificate. The judgment's silence as to Smith's request for recognition as owner of the whole property operates as a denial of that additional relief, not as an award to Johnson. See M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371, p. 12 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16, 26 (a judgment's silence as to a claim or demand generally means that the relief was denied) (citations omitted).

The curator's report concerning Johnson's reported understanding that she no longer owned the property does not alter the interest stated in the tax sale certificate. Nor do Smith's assertions that she paid later taxes, maintained the property, and possessed it establish error in the judgment confirming the tax sale interest proved by that instrument. Smith identifies no separate conveyance or adjudicated basis of title to the remaining 99% not conveyed to her by this certificate. To the extent her assertions may implicate other unpled claims as to ownership of the remaining 99% interest, those claims are not before us in this appeal.

Each of Smith's assignments of error rests on the premise that the expiration of the redemption and annulment periods converted her 1% interest into ownership of the entire property. The tax sale certificate and former La. R.S. 47:2153(B)(5) defeat that premise, as a tax sale conveys only the undivided interest bid. And a judgment confirming title under former La. R.S. 47:2266 forecloses collateral attack on that interest, it does not enlarge it. Therefore, we find no error in the district court's judgment, which recognized and confirmed Smith's ownership of a 1% undivided interest.

CONCLUSION

The tax sale certificate conveyed an undivided 1% interest, and the district court correctly recognized and confirmed Smith's ownership of that interest. Accordingly, the district court's December 2, 2025 judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano