Black River Crawfish Farms, LLC v. King
246 So. 3d 1
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Black River Crawfish Farms, LLC owns 189 acres in Concordia Parish; the land was historically burdened by one-third mineral servitudes reserved by members of the King family in the 1950s.
- The servitudes led to oil and gas activity on the tract (notably the BD King well producing from 1953, converted to SWD/injection, plugged by 1989; a dry hole was drilled and abandoned in January 1990).
- Black River purchased the 189-acre tract in 2003 and sued in 2012 under La.R.S. 31:22 (Article 22) seeking restoration of the surface due to historic oil & gas operations.
- The King Trustees (trustees of the Billy D. King Trust) argued the servitude had prescribed by ten years nonuse (last use 1990 → extinct by Jan 2000) and alternatively that the subsequent purchaser rule or lack of assignment barred Black River’s claim.
- The trial court recognized Black River as surface owner and the existence of historical servitudes but granted the King Trustees’ peremptory exception of prescription of nonuse and dismissed Black River’s Article 22 claims.
- On appeal the court held the mineral servitude and its correlative real obligation to restore were extinguished by prescription and confusion by January 2000, so Black River never acquired a right to enforce Article 22 against the King Trustees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were Black River’s Article 22 restoration claims prescribed by nonuse? | Black River argued the servitude was a continuing real right and its restoration claim survived or was enforceable by the current owner. | King Trustees relied on evidence (last operations Jan 1990) that ten-year nonuse extinguished the servitude by Jan 2000. | Held: Servitude last exercised in 1990 → extinguished by prescription in Jan 2000; claims prescribed as to King Trustees. |
| 2. Does the subsequent purchaser rule bar Black River’s claims? | Black River contended a mineral servitude is a real right that passes with land and thus the rule did not apply. | King Trustees argued Black River acquired no personal rights and, in any event, the servitude had already lapsed before the 2003 purchase. | Held: Court sustained exception of no right of action—because servitude and correlative obligation were extinguished in 2000, Black River never acquired the right to enforce Article 22. |
| 3. Are the King Trustees jointly and severally liable with other servitude owners/operators? | Black River sought joint/several liability of servitude owners/operators for contamination and restoration. | King Trustees argued their servitude and obligations were extinguished and they could not be held liable. | Held: Because the servitude and correlative obligation were extinguished by 2000, King Trustees not liable to Black River; court did not reach other defendants. |
| 4. Did judicial estoppel prevent the King Trustees from disavowing the servitude late in litigation? | Black River argued doctrine should bar dramatic disavowal after discovery closed. | King Trustees maintained the legal extinction of the servitude; estoppel did not apply to resurrect a nonexistent real right. | Held: Court rejected judicial estoppel argument; estoppel did not overcome legal extinction of the servitude and correlative obligation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246 (La. 2011) (defines mineral servitude as a real right and discusses subsequent purchaser rule)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- City of Bossier City v. Vernon, 100 So.3d 301 (La. 2012) (de novo review for legal questions)
- Hood v. Cotter, 5 So.3d 819 (La. 2008) (function and scope of exception of no right of action)
- Wise v. Watkins, 62 So.2d 653 (La. 1952) (real obligation ceases when the correlative real right no longer exists)
- Neumin Production Co. v. Tiger Bend, Ltd., 58 So.3d 1088 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2011) (when servitude extinguishes, mineral rights revert to surface owner by confusion)