106 So. 3d 283
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Dispute concerns ownership of water bottoms of the Caenarvon Canal on the boundary between St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes, where Delacroix claims ownership and Dean claims title or possessory rights.
- A 2004 34th Judicial District Court judgment found Delacroix owned the canal; Dean’s possessory and acquisitive prescription theories were rejected.
- Dean challenged ownership and pursued acquisitions by ten- or thirty-year prescription; the 34th District decision affirmed ownership in favor of Delacroix.
- Delacroix later sought intervention in a Plaquemines Parish action and obtained supervisory relief confirming its interest in the canal; proceedings then shifted back to the instant case.
- In 2008 Delacroix filed exceptions (Lis Pendens, No Right of Action, No Cause of Action) in the current case; in 2012 the trial court granted those exceptions and a Motion to Dismiss, which the court partially affirmed and partially reversed on appeal.
- The appellate court affirms the res judicata ruling but reverses on the abandonment-based dismissal, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Dean's claims. | Dean asserts lack of finality or identity of causes, arguing claims were not identical or fully adjudicated. | Delacroix contends the 2004 34th District judgment resolved ownership and thus bars further action under res judicata. | Res judicata applies; ownership issue conclusively decided in 2004 against Dean. |
| Whether No Right of Action/No Cause of Action preclusion bars Dean's claims. | Dean argues those exceptions were not properly applicable in the current forum and proceedings. | Delacroix contends those exceptions preclude Dean's claims as they rest on lack of standing or authority. | The appellate court pretermits No Right/No Cause discussion due to res judicata; needs no further ruling here. |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed on abandonment grounds. | Dean argues Delacroix waived abandonment by participating in hearings on the exceptions. | Delacroix asserts abandonment due to lack of timely action under Article 561. | Trial court erred in granting dismissal for abandonment; tolling analysis favors Dean, and abandonment not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (five-factor test for res judicata applicability)
- Dean v. Delacroix Corp., 853 So.2d 769 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2003) (relationship between ownership resolution and res judicata effects)
- Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C. v. Chevron, 79 So.3d 978 (La. 2011) (purpose of Article 561 abandonment doctrine; harshness of dismissal)
- Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 785 So.2d 779 (La. 2001) (abandonment standard; steps interrupting abandonment)
- Chevron Oil Co. v. Traigle, 436 So.2d 530 (La. 1983) (abandonment policy and protracted litigation avoidance)