Court Opinion

ID: 9651926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:01:04.359067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:43.824902
License: Public Domain

KUHN, J.,
concurring.
| ]Although I agree with the result I do not believe it is necessary to hold that the agreement is not a bond for deed. Whether the arrangement between the parties is characterized as a bond for deed or an oral residential lease agreement with an indefinite term, the requisite notice was not given. Because notice was not timely, I agree with the reversal of the judgment of eviction and find it unnecessary to characterize the parties’ arrangement. The rights of the parties — whether they exist under the written agreement or as a result of an oral arrangement — must be adjudicated in an ordinary proceeding and not in a summary eviction proceeding, which is the specific relief requested in the pleadings, see Carriere v. Bank of Louisiana, 95-3058 (La.12/13/96), 702 So.2d 648, 665. Accordingly, I concur in the result.