traffic light which you can see on the podium there the yellow line three minutes left in your argument when the red light comes on riyadh you can conclude as quickly as possible unless your internet question from the court and the second point is we may will have read your briefs and record excerpts but may not be familiar with the record so we appreciate record citations when they're available first case of the morning is number sixteen three one two two nine walker version of new orleans rehearing of this court pertaining to the district court's dismissal of our nine hundred eighty three action for lack of standing after filing the petition this court withdrew its original opinion and my petition for might try to cut to the chase and get to the issues that i believe are important i believe the crux of the issue in this case is the applicant dilatory of survival and wrongful death statutes as as it relates to standing the plaintiff has to have standing under louisiana's wrongful death of survival statutes that is i think where the court erred i think that decision is too narrow i think it resulted from the court's reliance on the decision in  frazier which the court cited fluid was a survival case and i believe that's why the court stated in its case that they must look into dick has a nine hundred eighty three claim he's curator would bring the claim under civil procedure article four five six six we think under a civil procedure article six eighty five in this case the succession representative is the prop according to bring this claim in stating that afaik it's important to stress who's right of action is being inserted in this case we are not asserting a cause of action of any of the deceit and see the wonder of them this is a cause of action of the succession itself that is being brought by the succession representative in fact the very wording of louisiana's wrongful death and survival statutes i believe makes very clear that they are in a play about the survival and wrongful death statutes apply when a a an offense or injury  suffered by a person who then dies the events resulting in this case occurred in two thousand and fourteen both of the deceit and styled years before that this is an action which occurred the succession itself after the dissidents had died and in fact well let me i think part of the confusion rests in this fiction we call succession and we see our own law we have a doctrine of season the stablished biologicals nine thirty four nine thirty five of the civil code which prohibits any gap in ownership so when immediately transmitted to the heirs but were also public record state and record owners of the ones who were recorded in the conveyance records so  have unknown relatives pop up the judgement of possession is the document is the ruling of the court which officially pronounces these are the correct errors and so they inherit but until that judgement possession is rendered and recorded we have this fictional succession which is in the ministration of the state and you can look at it as a corporation the succession representative is like the succession open i immediately followed on behalf of the heirs but realized we have to have a succession because these people have to become record owners in order to enjoy rights of ownership the succession i think we see our laws clear the code of procedure article three two one one provides a succession representative shall be deemed to have possession of all property of the succession and shall inform a sob legations in addition to that code of civil procedure article six eighty five provides except this otherwise provided by law the succession representative appointed by a court of this state is the proper party plight of to suit to enf whether the action is personal real or mix rationing opinion seem to think the city was was blameless because they followed their ordinance but the city has no right to enact an ordinance and use that ordinance to skirt the provisions of the federal constitution article of article of the of the the federal constitution makes it very clear private property shall not be taken without due process but you can't require them to do a complete succession review every time when it's fortunate here that there is a limited number of errors sometimes are going to be a couple dozen right rather i think they have to make a legitimate attempt to find the proper area their audience not only gives them the right to rely solely on the assesses rolls the ordinance even has the audacity to state that if the certified letter to the  allegations of the city's claims is a complete denial of due process and a complete violation of of the mennonite requirements for taking a property li this some time after the original judgments of this administrative proceedings took effect the city issued an order of demolition for the property and it was posted on the property and the heirs one of the heirs or perhaps a friend of the heirs happened to tell them that the notice had been posted and they contacted me i investigated and determine what for what it occurred how it was placed there found out they had received no knowledge whatsoever living there and at the time did not demolition notice was posted it is my information that nobody live there there had been people living there but at the time of the actual demolition notice it was it was vacant at that point and in fact to show you how absurd this is the city itself declared his property uninhabitable posted notices that was to be demolished yet that is the address they sent this notice the original notice of the proceeding how could they expect anybody to know about this administrative proceeding when they sent their notice to a i'm aware of my clients never learned that they never officially learned of it they learned of it by word of mouth by finding out the notices posted on the property itself and we may what is the test for sufficient notice under due process i think under it i don't think is a hard and fast rule with i think mennonite and the decisions there rhonda make it clear that you have to make some honest would you to make effort to determine the true oh and you can't simply rely on first of all you see why on assesses rules and secondly you certainly can't state that if you find out the message or your notice was not delivered you can't you can't say that that in itself constitutes admission of all of your obligations in your claims by the person you attempted to deliver the notice to i think we have your argument unless you've got something else to say i don't think you serve in the morning your honor ma'am please the court my name is tonya urban and i represent the appellee in this case the city of new orleans the issue before this court is whether a succession administrator has standing to bring in  eighty three claim for alleged deprivation of rights suffered directly by heirs this court has issued two affirmations of the district court's determination that the succession administrator lacks standing those have been withdrawn action such as the declaratory action that we have in this case that was also brought under one thousand nine hundred three however if this court is not inclined to follow poet and instead fills the standing gap with the louisiana civil code of procedure article six eighty five as suggested by the appellant the case should still be dismissed for lack of standing because the due process right at issue does not belong to the deceased record owners or the deceased record owners succession as contemplated in article six eighty five it is the city's position that the right does not belong to the succession because civil rights are personal in nature and can only be brought by those suffering the injury and also because ending is determined at the time the complainants found according to plough it and when the complaint was filed in this matter the successions were not under any ministration and consequently an administrator had not been appointed  louisiana article six eighty five provides that while the succession is under administration the court appointed succession representative is the proper plaintiff in two instances one is to enforce the right of the deceased and the dissidents had died and your contention is alive only a live person has due process rights and the succession and been appointed them basically you're saying the city didn't have to give any notice at all they could just go in and roll over th no your honor that's not what i'm saying and i'm saying that the why not because there's no right there can't be a violation well as appellate argue it appears that under louisiana law that is that the  the property has been the sole twice i'm sorry the links have been paid and the property has been sold twice since this matter was set for oral argument the property has been sold once from the succession to an entity called loyal ambassador and again about thirty days later from wal ambassador to another entity this case is my i believe it is and i'm trying  what we're fighting over i wish i could answer that question for you ya know the appellant in his original appellate brief on page fifteen has admitted that the big process right of the dissidents is not issues so were that leaves us with the second question of article sixty five which is to enforce the right of the deceased succession so we're trying to determine know what your injury what is your injury the property in order to stop the fines and interest at this administrative proceeding they assessed initial fines of of nine thousand dollars but there was also additional fines every day that nothing was done we contacted the city they wouldn't let us the pair the property they said nothing could be done it went into limbo and the as had no funds with of actually had to sell the property at a loss subject to their lead in the i don't know how you come back at this juncture and say wow we also know what you're out of and what we're trying to recover is the fines that we think will wrongfully assessed and collected by the city the city has taken twenty four thousand thought what we filed the federal action for two reasons first of all because we think the constitutional rights what denied and second because the city doesn't pay  judgments the only judgment you can enforce against city is a federal court judgment it's the it's a piece if you've got a stake your judgment it's a piece of paper that well this is a whole different appeal than the one that was pre know i mean you do your brief just say reversing remand for further proceedings so i don't know whether this includes the damage claim that you're making that i think i think that one thing your honor was first to recognize that we had to we had to appeal the issue of standing in order to proceed there have been some changes which will require some of them as to the plate ins but we we couldn't file anything there was no jurisdiction in the district court once the appeal  about and i don't know what the moves you know all of this but i'll be very surprised if there's not some administrative process and you can virtually can say you did but you didn't that none of us before us what before you can go far why don't you tell us i mean you're basically as i understood i understood what you were starting to say i think you're basically conceding that the succession could proceed with some kind of claim here and it's up to the executor of the deceit and to pursue any claims on behalf of the years because as he said there may be disputes about who are the heirs of legatees i understand your honor that the normal procedure here no matter what you call it correct your honor but here at the time that the alleged right was deprived there was no administration of this succession going on of a single case like confirms what you're saying no i do not have any case like all right well let's assume then that they have standing then given this new twist and of advantage why shouldn't we vacate and remand by they have named the heirs no the succession why should i mean if we were to hold either i mean it would just be a matter of amending and if we were to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction but tol limitations i believe probably could amend so why don't we just either way why don't we just reminded to the district court and you all fight it out because i believe that what he wants to put before the district court is a different case which is civil that's his that's frankly i'd rather have the district judge cool with that the enough i understand  i've had a couple of these new orleans cases and i know the city socks it really socks it to people with fines and fees and so on and i know nothing about the local administrative remedies more that they were exhausted  well their limit is were not exhausted they did they did not appeal the actual administrative judgment but of course their argument is that they didn't have noticed they could have found another the action in state court unconstitutional denial of due process has intending soley on demolition of the property the the denial of due process was having this administrative proceeding comment that was made is is what else the city could have done there are plenty of remedies under louisiana lot of the city could have taken as as one example when they got the letter back