Biglane v. Bd. of Commissioners
256 So. 3d 1052
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- James Biglane and Charlotte Biglane Nobile co-owned ~3,000 acres (Scotland and Genevieve Plantations) adjacent to the Mississippi River in Concordia Parish; FLD sought ~80 acres for a levee-raising/borrow project (Item 361-R).
- FLD sent an appropriation resolution and an offer based on an appraisal; Biglanes sued seeking compensation, disputing (1) that some of the land was noncompensable batture and (2) that some land had been previously appropriated.
- At trial the court excluded evidence on batture and prior-servitude issues as unpled affirmative defenses, then found FLD failed to prove batture or prior appropriation and awarded the Biglanes $1,397,500 less a prior payment; attorney fees were later awarded under La. R.S. 38:301.
- On appeal FLD argued the trial court erred by treating batture as an affirmative defense, by excluding batture evidence, and that the evidence actually established most of the river-side parcel was batture (noncompensable).
- Appellate court held the trial court erred to the extent it required batture to be pled as an affirmative defense; after review the court concluded admissible evidence established the ordinary high-water mark (~62 ft) and that most of Parcel 3-3 was batture, leaving only 13.992 compensable acres.
- Result: reversal of the April 24, 2017 judgment awarding additional compensation and reversal of the attorney-fee/cost awards; claims dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether batture is an affirmative defense that must be pled and evidence excluded if not pled | Biglanes argued exclusion proper because FLD failed to plead affirmative defenses | FLD argued batture is a legal criterion of valuation/compensation and need not be affirmatively pled | Court: batture arises from statutory/legal framework and need not be pled; exclusion was error |
| Whether admitted evidence established batture (noncompensable land) on Parcel 3-3 | Biglanes contended property was not batture and should be compensated for acreage taken | FLD presented expert analyses (gauge data, topo/LIDAR) showing ordinary high-water ~62 ft and most river-side acreage is batture | Court: FLD experts (Mayeaux, Kesel) established ordinary high-water ~62 ft; only 13.992 acres compensable in Parcel 3-3 |
| Whether any additional compensation was owed after accounting for batture and prior credit | Biglanes relied on their appraiser who assumed no batture/no prior ROW and computed full award | FLD argued appraisal improperly assumed no batture and did not account for prior payment/right-of-way | Court: applying appraiser's per-acre value to only compensable acres yields $75,276.96 for Parcel 3-3; FLD had already tendered more than that; no additional compensation owed |
| Entitlement to attorney fees and costs under La. R.S. 38:301 after judgment | Biglanes sought fees based on additional compensation awarded by trial court | FLD argued fees not proper if no additional compensation ultimately due | Court: because no additional compensation is due, statutory attorney fees and costs award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- DeSambourg v. Bd. of Com'rs for the Grand Prairie Levee Dist., 621 So.2d 602 (La. 1993) (defines "batture" and establishes ordinary high-water/mean-high-water approach for batture determinations)
- Fishbein v. State ex rel. LSU Health Sciences Ctr., 960 So.2d 67 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (discusses when a defense must be affirmatively pled and when statutory defenses need not be pleaded)
- Hyatt v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 149 So.3d 406 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2014) (explains how to determine whether a matter is an affirmative defense)
- Walker v. Hixson Autoplex of Monroe, L.L.C., 245 So.3d 1088 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2017) (framework for when appellate courts should apply de novo review for excluded evidence)