111 So. 3d 431
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cottonport Bank sues Garrett for trespass, injunction, loss of use, and removal of encroachments after Garrett’s fence and bulkhead work altered property boundaries.
- Garrett’s pier extends beyond the property line into False River, creating a T-shaped pier with a western extension that potentially obstructs Cottonport’s access.
- Trial court fixed the boundary via Langlois survey, ordered fence removal/rebuild, but allowed Garrett’s pier to remain as constructed on state property.
- Cottonport argued state regulation and public-policy prohibitions bar the encroachment; Cottonport sought injunctive relief and damages for the obstructing pier portion.
- Garrett’s reconventional demand claimed Cottonport’s building caused damage to his property; the trial court dismissed this reconventional demand.
- On appeal, the court vacates the portion allowing the pier to remain, remands for further pier-related proceedings, and affirms dismissal of Garrett’s reconventional demand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal of pier portion under Article 670 or abuse of rights | Cottonport argues removal is warranted under Article 670/abuse of rights. | Garrett contends no removal under those theories is required. | Vacate/remand; remand for pier boundary/obstruction issues. |
| State as necessary party for pier adjudication | Cottonport seeks to include State for just adjudication. | Garrett opposes or does not address State as necessary party. | Remand to consider State party inclusion in proceedings. |
| Applicability of public-right provisions (Art. 458) to pier obstruction | Cottonport relies on Art. 458 to remove obstructing public-use structures. | State-owned pier complicates applicability; evidence lacking. | Remand for factual development on obstruction and removability. |
| Garrett’s reconventional damages against Cottonport | Cottonport liable for damages due to structural issues (none stated). | Cottonport knew/should have known of defect causing damage. | Affirmed dismissal of reconventional demand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giardina v. Marrero Furniture Co., Inc., 310 So.2d 607 (La.1975) (private landowner can sue to remove encroachments on public property causing harm)
- Worthen v. DeLong, 763 So.2d 820 (La.App.1 Cir.2000) (right of action to remove structures obstructing public land use)
- Truschinger v. Pale, 513 So.2d 1151 (La.1987) (abuse of rights doctrine limited; not broadly applied)
- Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 344 So.2d 1353 (La.1977) (abuse of rights doctrine historically tied to contractual contexts)
- Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co., 368 So.2d 1009 (La.1979) (abuse of rights discussion in industrial/contractual contexts)
- Bell v. Edwards, 37 La.Ann. 475 (1885) (principle of a neighbor’s right to enforce boundary-related relief)