Opinion ID: 26067
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count One: Violation of Court Order.

Text: 7 Trinity first complains that the Taylors' redemption of the property previously conveyed to the Serses violated the injunction in the SEC action. The district court dismissed this count, concluding that contempt was the proper remedy to enforce the injunction, and that the government, not Trinity, would be the proper party to bring such an action. Our ruling rests on grounds distinct from those of the district court. 1 8 Before the SEC obtained its injunction, the Serses held title to the property subject to the lease-back and subject to the Taylors' right of redemption. Although Trinity asserts that the Serses had record title, they did not have unencumbered property. Louisiana law follows the first-in-time rule of priority, based on when instruments burdening real estate are filed in the parish records. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9: 2721, 2756 (West 1991 & West Supp. 2001). The Taylors' right of redemption, contained within the same instrument by which the Serses acquired the property, encumbered the property from the moment the Serses acquired the property. The right of redemption affects third parties from the time of the filing of the instrument that contains the right. See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2572 (West 1996) (emphasis added). 9 The Serses would not have held an unconditional or absolute title until the lapse of the time within which the Taylors had a reserved right to take back the thing exchanged. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2570 (West 1996); Brooks v. Broussard, 136 La. 380, 384, 67 So. 65, 66 (1914). Regardless of the prohibitions in the injunction, the Taylors' right to recover the property (and the Serses' obligation to honor that right) pursuant to the Act of Exchange existed before the injunction was entered. The seller who exercises the right of redemption is entitled to recover the thing free of any encumbrances placed upon it by the buyer. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2588 (West 1996). 10 Even if Trinity had succeeded in recovering the property from the Serses before the expiration of the right of redemption, Trinity too would have held it subject to the Taylors' right to reclaim the property free from other claims under the right of redemption, which is a resolutory condition. The Taylors' right to exercise their redemption and reclaim the property primes any rights acquired by later judgments or judgment creditors. 11 Under no set of facts could Trinity prove that it could have proceeded against the property to satisfy its claims and judgments. 12