Could a Louisiana village defend itself in court without a lawyer, and could a judgment creditor seize village property?

Plain-English summary

Rodessa faced a lawsuit filed in October 2002. Its attorney later withdrew after learning he would be called as a witness, and the village retained another firm but said it could no longer afford counsel. In 2005, the Attorney General concluded that the village could defend itself without an attorney only for the limited claims listed in La. R.S. 37:212(C): an open account, promissory note, or eviction. The opinion did not establish whether Rodessa's pending lawsuit actually fell into one of those categories.

If the exception applied, the village could act through a duly authorized official, agent, or representative. The AG said a proposed representative needed a favorable vote of the board of aldermen at an open public meeting, while noting it had not reviewed the village charter. It also concluded that public village property and funds could not be seized to satisfy a judgment under La. Const. Art. 12 § 10(C). The opinion addressed seizure but did not analyze other judgment remedies.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could Rodessa defend any civil lawsuit without a lawyer because attorney fees were too high?

No. The AG identified only the open-account, promissory-note, and eviction exception in La. R.S. 37:212(C). It said the village should not represent itself unless the actual disputed matter fit that exception.

Could a mayor or alderman appear for the village in a qualifying case?

The AG said the exception allowed an entity to appear through a duly authorized official, employee, agent, or representative. It did not say the mayor or an alderman could appear without proper authorization.

Did the board of aldermen need to approve a representative?

The opinion said an appointment recommendation required a favorable board vote at an open public meeting. It expressly noted that the AG had not reviewed Rodessa's charter.

Could a winning plaintiff seize village property or funds?

The AG said no: the cited constitutional provision barred seizure of public property and public funds to satisfy a judgment against a political subdivision. The opinion did not analyze other judgment procedures.

Background and statutory framework

The requester described an October 2002 case against the village and a lawyer's withdrawal after a potential witness conflict. La. R.S. 37:212(C) supplied the narrow exception for entity self-representation in the three specified types of claim. La. Const. Art. 12 § 10(C) supplied the separate rule against seizure of public assets. Because the opinion did not identify the lawsuit's subject, its self-representation answer remained conditional on the claim type.

Citations

• La. R.S. 37:212(C) (limited entity self-representation exception).
• La. Const. Art. 12 § 10(C) (public property and funds exempt from seizure).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/05-0286

Original opinion text

November 15, 2005
Opinion Number 05-0286

46 Exemption from seizure
71 Municipalities

La. Const. Art. 12 § 10(C)
Douglas C. Dominick
La. R.S. 13:5109
Village of Rodessa- City Attorney La. R.S. 37:212(C). 203 West Alabama A village may not proceed with a lawsuit by
P.O. Box 20
representing itself unless the claim pertains to
Vivian, LA 71082
an open account, promissory note, or suit for
eviction.
Dear Mr. Dominick:

This office is in receipt of your opinion request regarding a lawsuit filed against the Village of Rodessa (the Village) on October 10, 2002. After receiving notice that you, as the parish attorney, would be called as a witness, you have withdrawn from your representation of the Village because of a possible conflict of interest in accordance with the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Village has since retained a law firm, but due to the lengthiness of the litigation, the Village no longer has sufficient funds to pay an attorney. You now have requested an opinion on the following issues:

1. Can the Village proceed with the lawsuit by representing itself?

2. If so, can the mayor or an alderman represent the Village?

3. If an alderman was to represent the Village, would this have to be
   approved by the city council upon recommendation of the mayor, or
   could the board of alderman simply vote without concurrence of the
   mayor?

4. If a judgment was rendered against the Village, could any assets of
   the municipality be seized to satisfy the judgment?

With regards to the first question, it appears clear that Louisiana law would allow for the Village of Rodessa to defend itself in the above mentioned matter if the claim pertains to “an open account or promissory note, or suit for eviction.” La. R.S. 37:212(C). Thus, the village should not represent itself unless the disputed matter falls within the above mentioned exception.

Page 2

Opinion No. 0286
Mr. Douglas C. Dominick
City Attorney
Village of Rodessa
Page: -2-

Next, assuming that this claim pertains to an open account, promissory note, or suit for eviction as listed in La. R.S. 37:212(C), the statute allows the Village to represent itself through a duly authorized official, agent, or representative. The statute, allowing for such representation states, “Nothing in this Section shall prohibit any partnership, corporation, or other legal entity from (defending) any claim… on its own behalf through a duly authorized partner, shareholder, officer, employee, or duly authorized agent or representative.”

In regards to the third question, while this office has not reviewed the Village’s charter, it appears that any recommendation to appoint someone to represent the Village must, in any event, be approved by the board of aldermen with a favorable vote at an open and public meeting.

Finally, if a judgment was rendered against the Village, assets of the municipality could not be seized to satisfy the judgment. La. Const. Art. 12 § 10(C) provides, “(The Legislature) shall provide a procedure for suits against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision and provide for the effect of a judgment, but no public property or public funds shall be subject to seizure.”

Therefore, unless this matter is an open account, promissory note, or suit for eviction, it is the opinion of this office that the Village of Rodessa can not represent itself. Finally, pursuant to La. Const. Art. 12 § 10(C), assets of the Village of Rodessa are not subject to seize to secure the effect of a judgment.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: _________
CHARLES H. BRAUD, JR.
Assistant Attorney General

CCF, Jr./CHB, Jr./jd

Page 3

SYLLABUS
OPINION NUMBER 05-0286

46 Exemption from seizure
71 Municipalities

La. Const. Art. 12 § 10(C)
La. R.S. 13:5109
La. R.S. 37:212(C).

A village may not proceed with a lawsuit by representing itself unless the claim pertains to an open account, promissory note, or suit for eviction.

Douglas C. Dominick
Village of Rodessa- City Attorney
203 West Alabama
P.O. Box 20
Vivian, LA 71082

DATE RECEIVED:

DATE RELEASED: November 15, 2005

Charles H. Braud, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General