On September 10, in Monahan v. City of New Orleans, No. 2025-CA-0757, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a district court judgment compelling the City of New Orleans to pay an $8,284,084.51 tax refund judgment through a writ of mandamus, rejecting the City’s argument that payment remained discretionary absent a specific legislative appropriation.
The litigation traces back to a 1998 city ordinance that imposed penalties and collection fees on delinquent ad valorem property taxes. In 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court held the ordinance unconstitutional to the extent it imposed penalties beyond interest on delinquent property taxes. After further proceedings, including class certification in 2015, the district court entered judgment in April 2023 declaring the ordinance unconstitutional as applied to the certified class. In April 2024, the court fixed the total reimbursement amount owed to the class. The City did not appeal either judgment, and both became final. When the City failed to pay, the class representative sought a writ of mandamus to compel payment, which the district court granted in July 2025.
On appeal, the City argued that no statute specifically authorized mandamus in this context, distinguishing this case from Jazz Casino Co., L.L.C. v. Bridges, where specific refund statutes governing state taxes expressly required payment and authorized mandamus. The City contended that under Louisiana Constitution Article XII, Section 10(C) and La. R.S. 13:5109(B)(2), judgments against political subdivisions are payable only from specifically appropriated funds, and that ordering payment from the general fund would violate separation of powers.
The Fourth Circuit disagreed. Writing for the panel, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano held that Louisiana Constitution Article VII, Section 3(A), which requires “a complete and adequate remedy for the prompt recovery of an illegal tax,” combined with Article V, Section 35, which extends that remedy to unconstitutional taxes, supplies a specific constitutional exception to the general appropriation requirement. The court reasoned that an unsatisfied judgment does not constitute “recovery” of an illegal tax any more than an unsatisfied inverse condemnation judgment constitutes payment of just compensation, drawing on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recent decision in Watson Memorial Spiritual Temple of Christ v. Korban. The court distinguished several cases for the City on the ground that none involved a constitutional provision specifically guaranteeing recovery of an illegal or unconstitutional tax.
Notably, the court found that the City’s administrative payment practices, including its policy of allocating $2 million annually toward judgments on a chronological basis, could not override the constitutional guarantee. Taxpayers seeking refunds of illegal tax exactions are not similarly situated to ordinary tort and contract judgment creditors.
Ratified by voters in 2019, this is the second time that Louisiana courts have relied upon Article V, Section 35, to preserve taxpayers’ rights to contest the payment of unlawful taxes or fees. In Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC v. Lopinto, App. 5 Cir.2022, 354 So.3d 69, 22-204 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/2/22), writ denied 356 So.3d 341, 2022-01761 (La. 2/24/23), the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal held that Article V, Section 35 supported the Board of Tax Appeals’ conclusion that it had jurisdiction to act as a trial court and conduct a de novo review, rather than act as an appellate court relative to the redetermination of a tax assessment.
For more information about this update, contact Liskow attorneys Bob Angelico, Leon Rittenberg III, Caroline Lafourcade, and Kevin Naccari, and visit Liskow’s Tax Practice page.