133 So. 3d 1262
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Boudreaux’s Tire & Auto Repair (Boudreaux’s) bought and renovated property at 2301–2309 Tulane Ave., New Orleans in 2004 and operated an auto/tire shop there.
- LSU Board of Supervisors filed an expropriation petition in 2010 for a new VA medical center, depositing $685,358 as just compensation.
- A three-day jury trial in November 2012 addressed only just compensation under La. Const. art. I, § 4(B)(5); jury awarded $978,600.
- Trial court entered judgment for the balance ($292,242) plus interest; Board appealed the compensation judgment and challenged exclusion of the 2004 purchase price evidence.
- Afterward, the trial court awarded Boudreaux’s $109,021.73 in attorney fees, $31,275 in expert fees, and costs; Board appealed the fees award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2004 purchase price | Board: purchase price is relevant evidence of market value | Boudreaux’s: sale was below market between friends; purchase price misleading | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the 2004 price; exclusion harmless given record |
| Award of attorney fees (statutory under La. R.S. 19:8) | Boudreaux’s: fees reasonable and supported by contingency arrangement and Williamson factors | Board: trial court failed to explicitly balance all Williamson factors; award mirrors contingency contract | Court: trial court properly considered Williamson factors; award not per se unreasonable because it aligns with contingency fee and record supports reasonableness |
| Fees for work on abandoned relocation/reestablishment claims | Boudreaux’s: entitled to fees for work on issues tested | Board: fees should exclude time on claims not tried | Court: fees for untested/abandoned claims are not compensable; remanded to trial court to review time records and adjust if necessary |
| Expert witness fees (Dr. Ragas) | Boudreaux’s: expert preparation and trial work taxable; includes prep for deposition | Board: fee unreasonable and includes deposition-related work not used at trial; award should be reduced | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; prep fees allowable, hourly rate reasonable; no reduction warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Hill, 788 So.2d 1154 (La. 2001) (describing three valuation approaches and favoring market/sales approach)
- State v. Williamson, 597 So.2d 439 (La. 1992) (enumerating factors for assessing reasonable attorney fees in expropriation litigation)
- State, Department of Highways v. Addison, 136 So.2d 545 (La. Ct. App. 1961) (purchase price may be relevant to market value absent indicia of a non‑arm’s‑length sale)
- Rivet v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 800 So.2d 777 (La. 2001) (contingent fee agreements may be considered but do not bind courts in fee awards)
- City of Shreveport v. Chanse Gas Corp., 794 So.2d 962 (La. Ct. App. 2001) (attorney fees under expropriation statutes may cover work challenging legitimacy of taking even if some issues are unsuccessful)