The opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2020 CE 0687
DARRELL D. MARTIN
VERSUS
JEREMY D. ROBINSON AND HONORABLE GARY STANGA IN
HIS CAPACITY OF CLERK OF COURT, PARISH OF
TANGIPAHOA
Judgment Rendered: AUG Q 6 2020
Appealed from the a
Twenty-first Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa, Louisiana{'`;'
Docket Number 2020- 0001966 CD
z
Honorable Charlotte Foster, Judge Presiding
7S 7i ; 7 X7C 7CXX: X7CX
Russell C. Monroe Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Ponchatoula, LA Darrell D. Martin
Vanessa Williams Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee,
Latoya Williams -Simon Jermey D. Robinson
Charles Brumfield
Amite, LA
A. Bradley Berner Counsel for Defendant/Appellee,
Hammond, LA
Gary Stanga, in his capacity as
Clerk of Court, Parish of
Tangipahoa
YXX:' X CXX CX [ XY
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE,
j
f AND CHUTZ, JJ.
McDONALD, J.
In this suit challenging candidacy, Darrell Martin appeals the district
court' s judgment denying his objection to the candidacy of Jermey
Robinson' for the office of Chief of Police for the Village of Tangipahoa.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 24, 2020, Jermey Demond Robinson filed a sworn Notice of
Candidacy with the Tangipahoa Parish Cleric of Court, declaring his intent to
run for the office of Chief of Police, Village of Tangipahoa. On the Notice
of Candidacy, Robinson certified that his domicile address was 12321
Brown Road, Tangipahoa, Louisiana.'-
On July 29, 2020, Darrell Martin, Chief of Police of, and a qualified
elector in, the Village of Tangipahoa, Parish of Tangipahoa, filed an
Objection to the Candidacy of Robinson contending that Robinson did not
meet the qualifications for the office as set forth in La. R.S. 33: 385. 1
because he did not reside and was not domiciled in the Village of
Tangipahoa. See La. R.S. 18: 491( A) & 18: 492( A)( 3). The district court
conducted a hearing on the matter on July 30, 2020, and, by judgment dated
that day, denied Martin' s challenge to Robinson' s candidacy. From this
judgment, Martin appeals.
DISCUSSION
Because election laws must be interpreted to give the electorate the
widest possible choice of candidates, a person objecting to candidacy bears
Although Mr. Robinson' s name is listed in the caption of the suit as " Jeremy
Robinson,"
the record reveals that the correct spelling of his first name is " Jermey."
2One of the requirements to qualify as a candidate in a primary election is the
timely filing of a notice of candidacy, which shall be in writing and shall state the
candidate' s name, the office he seeks, the address of his domicile and the parish, ward
and precinct where he is registered to vote. La. R.S. 18: 461( A)( 1) & 18: 463( A)( 1)( a).
the burden of proving that the candidate is disqualified. Landiak v.
Richmond, 2005- 0758 ( La. 3/ 24/ 05), 899 So. 2d 535, 541. Moreover, a
court determining whether the plaintiff objecting to candidacy has carried
his burden of proof must liberally construe the laws governing the conduct
of elections "
so as to promote rather than defeat candidacy." Landiak, 899
So. 2d at 541 ( quoting Becker v. Dean, 2003- 2493 ( La. 9/ 18/ 03), 954 So. 2d
864, 869). Any doubt concerning the qualifications of a candidate should be
resolved in favor of allowing the candidate to run for public office. Becker,
954 So. 2d at 869.
In his petition challenging Robinson' s candidacy, Martin asserted that
despite Robinson' s certification in his Notice of Candidacy that he was
domiciled in Tangipahoa, Louisiana, he is in fact domiciled in Kentwood,
Louisiana, where he owns a home, has filed for the homestead exemption,
and resides with his children. He further contended that Robinson had
knowingly provided an incorrect address in the Village of Tangipahoa, that
of his mother, as his domicile on the Notice of Candidacy in an effort to
become a candidate for an office for which he is not qualified.
A challenge to the candidacy of a person may be based on the ground
that the candidate " does not meet the qualifications for the office he seeks in
the primary election." La. R.S. 18: 492( A)( 3). With regard to the
qualifications of the office of Chief of Police, La. R.S. 33: 385. 1( B) provides
as follows:
B. The elected chief of police of a village shall be an elector of
the village who at the time of qualification as a candidate for
the office of chief of police shall have been domiciled for at
least the immediately preceding six months in the villageY]
3A municipal corporation having 1, 000 or fewer inhabitants is classified as a
village. La. R.S. 33: 341. In his brief on appeal, Martin cites the qualifications provision
in subsection A of La. R. S. 33: 385. 1, generally applicable to municipalities, which
provides that a candidate for chief of police shall have been domiciled in the municipality
for at least the immediately preceding year at the time of qualification. However, he
3
Domicile of a natural person is defined as " the place of his habitual
residence." La. C. C. art. 38.
A person may reside in several places, but may
have only one domicile. La. C. C. art. 39. A person' s domicile is his
principal establishment wherein he makes his habitual residence and
essentially consists of two elements, namely residence and intent to remain
in place. McClendon v. Bel, 2000- 2011 ( La. App. I" Cir. 9/ 7/ 00), 797 So.
2d 700, 704. If a candidate has more than one residence, intention is the
determinative factor in ascertaining the location of his domicile. Johnson v.
Augustine, 2006- 1690 ( La. App. I" Cir. 8/ 29/ 06), 943 So. 2d 466, 470, writ
denied, 2006- 2189 ( La. 9/ 1/ 06), 936 So. 2d 820. Once domicile is
established, there is a presumption against change of domicile. Johnson, 943
So. 2d at 470.
A question of domicile for the purpose of a candidacy
challenge presents an issue of fact, reviewable under the manifest error
standard. Id. at 469.
While Martin presented evidence at the hearing in the district court
below attempting to establish that Robinson' s domicile was in fact in
Kentwood, Louisiana, where he had recently purchased a home, Robinson
testified that the home in Kentwood was an investment property, which he
had obtained at a " good price" and hoped to sell in the future at a financial
gain.
Robinson further presented testimony and supporting evidence to
establish that, while he enjoyed the use of his Kentwood home as an
additional residence, his intent was to continue to maintain his domicile in
the Village of Tangipahoa, where he had been raised, has been residing with
presented no evidence to establish that the Village of Tangipahoa, which the testimony
indicated encompasses approximately a one -mile radius, did not qualify as a village
based on its population. See La. R. S. 33: 342( A)( 2) & 33: 343. Nonetheless, in light of
Martin' s assignment of error on appeal, the length of Robinson' s domicile in the Village
of Tangipahoa is not at issue herein.
0
his mother and daughter since returning from full-time active service in the
military, had been registered to vote for years, owns property on which he
intends to build a home in the future, and is raising his daughter with the
assistance of his mother.
Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing below,
the district court found that Robinson was domiciled in the Village of
Tangipahoa and that Martin had not met his burden to establish that he
intended to abandon that domicile and change his domicile to Kentwood,
Louisiana when he purchased a home there, factual findings which are
amply supported by the evidence of record. Indeed, on appeal, Martin states
in his brief that Robinson " appears to meet" the domicile requirements of
La. R.S. 33: 385. 1.
Instead, for the first time on appeal, Martin argues that Robinson
certified in his Notice of Candidacy that he was a qualified elector in the
Village of Tangipahoa and that he was registered to vote in the place where
his homestead exempt property was located, when clearly he was not. The
certification in the Notice of Candidacy upon which Robinson now relies
provides as follows:
8. If I am a candidate for any office other than United States
senator or representative in congress, that if I claim a
homestead exemption on a residence pursuant to Article
VII, Section 20 of the Constitution of Louisiana, I am
registered and vote in the precinct in which that residence is
located, unless I reside in a nursing home as defined in La. R. S.
40: 2009.2 or a veteran' s home operated by the state or federal
government.
Emphasis added). Martin contends on appeal that at the time Robinson
qualified as a candidate for Chief of Police for the Village of Tangipahoa,
Robinson' s home in Kentwood, Louisiana had a homestead exemption
recorded in Robinson' s name, thereby requiring Robinson to register to vote
5
in Kentwood, the place where his homestead -exempt residence was located.
See La. R.S. 18: 101( B).' Thus, Martin argues on appeal that because
Robinson is ineligible to be a registered elector in the Village of Tangipahoa,
he does not meet the qualifications for the office of Chief of Police as set
forth in La. R. S. 33: 385. 1. Accordingly, he asserts that the district court
erred as a matter of law in failing to render judgment declaring that
Robinson was ineligible to be registered in, to vote in, or to run for office of
Chief of Police in the Village of Tangipahoa.
As a general rule, appellate courts will not consider issues that were
not raised in the pleadings, were not addressed by the district court, or are
raised for the first time on appeal. Johnson v. Montoya, 2013- 1951 ( La.
App. 1' t Cir. 5/ 2/ 14), 145 So. 3d 418, 422; see also Uniform Rules— Courts
of Appeal, Rule 1- 3. As set forth above, the basis of Martin' s challenge to
Robinson' s candidacy in the district court was that Robinson did not reside
in and was not domiciled in the Village of Tangipahoa, an argument which
he has essentially abandoned on appeal. Accordingly, because Martin did
not raise in the district court the issue of Robinson' s alleged ineligibility to
be a qualified elector in the Village of Tangipahoa as a basis to his challenge
to Robinson' s candidacy, the issue is not properly before us on appeal.
Nonetheless, to the extent that the pleadings may have been expanded
at the hearing on this matter where evidence and testimony were presented
as to the existence of a homestead exemption in Robinson' s name on the
Kentwood property, we address Martin' s contention on appeal.
4Pursuant to La. R.S. 18: 101( B), "[ i]f a citizen resides at more than one place in
the state with an intention to reside there indefinitely, he may register and vote only at
one of the places at which he resides."
However, with the exception of a person residing
in a nursing home or veterans home, if the person " claims a homestead exemption on one
of those residences, " he shall register and vote in the precinct in which that residence is
located...."
0
As set forth in footnote 4, La. R.S. 18: 101( B) requires a person who
has more than one residence, including one on which he " claims a
homestead exemption," to register to vote in the place where he claims the
exemption. ( Emphasis added). However, because the record before us
clearly demonstrates that Robinson did not " claim" a homestead exemption
on his home in Kentwood, he was not required to register to vote in
Kentwood.
While Martin presented evidence at the hearing below that at the time
Robinson qualified as a candidate for the office of Chief of Police, the
Tangipahoa Parish Assessor' s Office listed Robinson' s Kentwood home as
subject to a homestead exemption, Robinson testified that he had never
requested such an exemption on the property and the error of the Assessor' s
Office in listing the property as homestead exempt had been corrected
Robinson' s testimony was further supported by the testimony of
Brady Sledge, the
chief deputy assessor for the Tangipahoa Parish
Assessor' s Office.
Sledge explained the process for requesting a homestead
exemption, which involves the homeowner completing an application for the
exemption,
followed at times by an investigation to determine if the
homeowner qualifies for the exemption. Upon reviewing the file for the
Kentwood property, Sledge testified that Robinson had not applied for a
homestead exemption on that property. Sledge explained that the Assessor' s
Office does not force anyone to receive the homestead exemption if the
individual does not want it. Sledge surmised that the fact that the Kentwood
home was listed as homestead exempt was an oversight where the
designation from the prior owner was not removed when the property was
transferred to Robinson. According to Sledge, while these types of errors
are not commonplace, they do occur.
0
The facts developed at the hearing below clearly establish that
Robinson did not " claim the homestead exemption"
on his home in
Kentwood, which he purchased less than
one year ago. Rather, the
Assessor' s Office, in the absence of any request from Robinson, erroneously
listed the Kentwood home as subject to a homestead exemption, when in fact
it was not. Thus, because Robinson did not " claim the homestead
exemption"
on the Kentwood home, he was not required to register to vote
in Kentwood pursuant to La. R. S. 18: 101( B).
Additionally, we note that La. R. S. 18: 191 provides that the voter
registration of any person shall remain in effect as long as the registration is
not canceled for a cause and in the manner set forth by statute. Louisiana
Revised Statute 18: 193( A) sets forth the procedure to be followed if the
registrar has reason to believe a person is no longer qualified to be registered
or that the registrant has changed his residence. Robinson' s voter
registration was never properly challenged pursuant to statute, and he was
thus an elector of the Village of Tangipahoa on the date he qualified as a
candidate for the office of Chief of Police. See Walsh v. Rogillio, 2000-
1995 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 7/ 00), 768 So. 2d 653, 656, writ denied, 2000-2610
La. 9/ 12/ 20), 766 So. 2d 1288.
Accordingly, we find no merit to Martin' s arguments on appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, the July 30, 2020 judgment of
the district court,
denying Darrell Martin' s petition
challenging the
candidacy of Jermey Robinson, is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are
assessed against plaintiff, Darrell Martin.
AFFIRMED.