KASHANNA LARAY BRIDGES v. BRANDON MARCEL JONES (2026)

Defendant/Appellant, Brandon Marcel Jones (Mr. Jones), appeals a judgment of May 1, 2025, holding him in constructive contempt of court for failing to abide by an April 15, 2025 order of the district court to produce funds to effectuate the closing of a sale of property co-owned indivision with his former wife, Plaintiff/Appellee Kashanna LaRay Bridges (Ms. Bridges). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter arises from post-divorce proceedings to force the private sale of the parties’ former marital residence located on Park Oak Avenue in Prairieville, Louisiana (Park Oak property). Ms. Bridges and Mr. Jones were married in April of 2021 ² Approximately six months later, in October of 2021, the parties began living separate and apart. At all times thereafter, Mr. Jones continued to reside in the Park Oak property.

The parties were divorced on January 5, 2023, by judgment of the Family Court of East Baton Rouge Parish (Family Court). Ms. Bridges and Mr. Jones agreed to sell the Park Oak property, which had been purchased prior to the marriage and was co-owned indivision by them. On June 26, 2023, by stipulated judgment, the parties agreed that the Park Oak property was co-owned rather than community property and the Family Court ordered the sale of the Park Oak property and that all debts associated with the sale of the home be satisfied, with any proceeds to be deposited in the registry of the court.³ By the following summer, the Park Oak property had not sold and Mr. Jones sought incidental relief regarding the property in Family Court. On July 16, 2024, the Family Court entered judgment divesting of subject matter jurisdiction and directing the parties to file their claims in the appropriate district court. Shortly thereafter, on August 8, 2024, Ms. Bridges filed a Petition for Judicial Partition of Property with Rule Nisi in Ascension Parish District Court seeking partition by licitation at private sale of the Park Oak property.

In her petition, Ms. Bridges alleged that Mr. Jones had impeded all efforts to sell the Park Oak property. Specifically, she alleged that Mr. Jones had declined showings, rescinded scheduled showings, failed to keep the home in a showable condition, and frequently removed the “for sale” sign from the yard. She further alleged that Mr. Jones had obtained a dog, which he allowed to defecate in the garage and cause severe damage which made portions of the property undesirable and less marketable. Because of the constant deterioration of the property with Mr. Jones in the residence, Ms. Bridges requested that he be ordered to immediately vacate the premises to allow for the sale of the home. In addition, Ms. Bridges averred that Mr. Jones ceased making mortgage payments in December of 2021, which had resulted in arrearages of approximately $79,000.00. The loan entered foreclosure and the Park Oak property was in executory process. Ms. Bridges also requested the district court appoint a realtor as Mr. Jones had unilaterally terminated the realtor upon whom the parties had agreed without Ms. Bridges’ knowledge. Finally, Ms. Bridges sought one half of the proceeds of the sale, with no reimbursement claims, and attorney fees.

On November 20 and December 6, 2024, Mr. Jones filed an Answer and Amended and Supplemental Answer, respectively.⁴ In relevant part, Mr. Jones denied that he had impeded the sale of the Park Oak property. He further denied that his dog had caused any damage thereby lessening the fair market value of the home. Mr. Jones stated that he did not renew the contract of the initial realty company based on performance issues of the agent. Mr. Jones also challenged the request for his eviction. All other allegations were denied. Following a December 6, 2024 hearing on the petition, the district court ordered the Park Oak property to be sold and provided for appraisal and inspections. After a review hearing on January 14, 2025, the district court appointed realtor Donna H. Viator to market and sell the Park Oak property.

Another review hearing was held on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. The district court was informed that a buyer had been found and closing had been scheduled, but did not go through. Mr. Jones’ counsel explained that the “sale [was] upside down” and approximately $15,069.00 would be needed from the sellers to perfect the sale. Ms. Bridges’ counsel advised the district court that her client was present at the closing with $6,000.00, an amount Ms. Bridges had negotiated as settlement of her portion to be paid at closing. Mr. Jones did not show up at the closing and had not produced any funds. Mr. Jones’ counsel advised that he did not know if Mr. Jones would have the money “immediately available,” to which the judge replied, “[w]ell, he'll have to find it because this has gone on too long. ․ I might charge him with costs and attorney fees and all that other good stuff. All right?”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court ordered the sale to be completed by the following Monday, April 21, 2025, and admonished counsel that if either party obstructed the sale there would be consequences. In addition, the district court set another review hearing for April 21, 2025. A written order followed the April 15, 2025 hearing in which the district court ordered Ms. Bridges to immediately produce $6,000.00 and Mr. Jones to immediately produce $9,069.97 to effectuate the sale of the Park Oak property. The parties were further ordered to cooperate and not to “delay, impede, or otherwise interfere” with the sale.

At the April 21, 2025 review hearing, Mr. Jones’ counsel advised that his client was unable to secure the funds and the sale did not close as ordered. Mr. Jones was not present at the hearing. An extended colloquy followed on the issues of Mr. Jones’ failure to comply with the district court's order and possible reasons therefor, his alleged pattern of obstructive behavior vis-a-vis the efforts to sell the Park Oak property, and brainstorming ideas to facilitate the closing of the sale, one of which was a contempt charge against Mr. Jones. Ultimately, the district court found Mr. Jones to be in contempt of court for failing to abide by its order of April 15, 2025, with a penalty of jail time if he did not produce the increased amount of $10,83 7.97 ⁵ within 24 hours.⁶ A written judgment followed.⁷ The judgment does not define the punishment for the contempt finding, stating only that the “[c]ontempt penalty is deferred for 24 hours․” The record indicates, without specificity or details, that the private sale of the Park Oak property closed on May 2, 2025.

This appeal of the judgment of contempt followed.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 224 defines a constructive contempt as “any contempt other than a direct one,” and sets forth a number of acts that constitute a constructive contempt, including the following: “[w]ilful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court[.]” La. C.C.P. art. 224(2). Although a district court has discretion to determine whether to find a person guilty of constructive contempt of court, a finding that a person wilfully disobeyed a court order in violation of La. C.C.P. art. 224(2) must be based on a finding that the accused violated an order of the court “intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, without justifiable excuse.” Lang v. Asten, Inc., 2005-1119 (La. 1/13/06), 918 So.2d 453, 454.

In the instant matter, however, because the district court did not follow the proper procedure for instituting contempt proceedings, we do not reach the merits of the court's judgment finding Mr. Jones in constructive contempt. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 225 sets forth the mandatory procedure applicable to punishment for constructive contempt of court, pertinently providing:

A. Except as otherwise provided by law, a person charged with committing a constructive contempt of court may be found guilty thereof and punished therefor only after the trial by the judge of a rule against him to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt and punished accordingly. The rule to show cause may issue on the court's own motion or on motion of a party to the action or proceeding and shall state the facts alleged to constitute the contempt. ․ In all ․ cases [other than those involving constructive contempt of an appellate court], a certified copy of the motion, and of the rule to show cause, shall be served upon the person charged with contempt in the same manner as a subpoena at least forty-eight hours before the time assigned for the trial of the rule.

B. If the person charged with contempt is found guilty the court shall render an order reciting the facts constituting the contempt, adjudging the person charged with contempt guilty thereof, and specifying the punishment imposed.8

A person charged with contempt is entitled to notice of the charge against him, in the form of a formal rule to show cause, which must be served in the same manner as a subpoena. These procedural requirements are intended to clearly and fairly apprise the accused of the nature and cause of the charge against him, so he can defend himself. Lonesome Dev. v. Town of Abita Springs, 2025-00154 (La. 5/29/25), 409 So.3d 743, 744 (per curiam), citing Lang, 918 So.2d at 455.

The requirement that the rule to show cause “shall state the facts alleged to constitute the contempt” is mandatory. Lang, 918 So.2d at 455, citing Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. England, 252 La. 1000, 215 So.2d 640, 642 (La. 1968). Proceedings for contempt must be strictly construed, and the policy of our law does not favor extending their scope. Bourne v. Bourne, 2013-2170 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/18/14), 2014 WL 3702486, *3, (unpublished), writ denied, 2014-1791 (La. 9/12/14), 148 So.3d 936.

In Lang, supra, during a hearing, the district court admonished counsel for third-party insurers that disobedience of a court order would be punished. In a subsequent hearing six weeks later, the district court found the insurers guilty of constructive contempt. Lang, 918 So. 2d at 455. The insurers appealed and the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, finding as follows:

Nothing in the documents before this court indicate that the mandatory requirement that the facts constituting the alleged contempt be set forth in a rule to show cause was followed in this case. In fact, the district court's own reasons for judgment reveal that the court failed to follow the mandatory requirements.

Id.

Here, as in Lang, while the district court forewarned of consequences in the event Mr. Jones failed to comply with the court's order, the record before us contains no indication that a rule to show cause was issued or that a hearing was held in this court-initiated contempt charge. Rather, the district court held Mr. Jones in contempt during a hearing at which Mr. Jones was not present with no notice or ability to defend against the contempt charge as provided in La. C.C.P. art. 225. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the judgment finding Mr. Jones in constructive contempt and remand the matter with instructions for the district court to comply with the procedure set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 225.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court holding Defendant/Appellant Brandon Marcel Jones in constructive contempt of court is reversed and the matter is remanded to the district court. The district court is instructed to issue a rule to show cause stating the facts constituting the alleged contempt in compliance with La. C.C.P. art. 225(A). If there is a subsequent finding of contempt, the district court is instructed to issue an order in compliance with La. C.C.P. art. 225(B). Each party to bear their own appeal costs.

REVERSED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Ms. Bridges provides the date of the marriage as April 17, 2021. Mr. Jones states the parties were married on April 25, 2021.

3.   The stipulated judgment does not appear in the record, but is referenced in the July 16, 2024 judgment of the Family Court, infra.

4.   In his Answer, Mr. Jones also asserted affirmative defenses and demands in reconvention.

5.   To the $9,069.97 to be paid by Mr. Jones as set forth the April 15, 2025 Order, the district court added $768.00 in rate lock fees and $500.00 each for Ms. Bridges’ counsel's and Ms. Viator's attendance at the April 21, 2025 review hearing.

6.   Mr. Jones was also ordered to vacate the Park Oak property within 48 hours of the ruling.

7.   The judgment was signed on May 1, 2025.

8.   Official Revision Comments(a) to La. C.C.P. art. 225 states as follows:The procedure in this article employs a rule to show cause, which may issue on the court's own motion or on the motion of a party, and the motion for the rule to show cause sets forth the facts alleged to constitute the constructive contempt. Further, the person charged with committing the constructive contempt is allowed at least forty-eight hours to prepare his defense.

THERIOT, J.