185 So. 3d 856
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Roy Flippo and Robert Treadway are owners in Ranchland Acres Subdivision and sued for a mandatory injunction, alleging defendant Natosha Mann lived in a mobile home/trailer on Lot 12, Block N in violation of subdivision covenants (Restrictions).
- The Restrictions include (1) a Dwelling Size provision requiring main structures be constructed on-site (no main structures moved onto lots) and (2) a Temporary Structures provision banning trailers or other temporary structures from being used as residences except on specifically enumerated lots.
- Plaintiffs noticed a trailer/mobile home placed on the lot in March 2013, sent a demand letter to Mann in July 2013, and filed suit in February 2014 (within the two-year statute in La. C.C. art. 781).
- Mann raised defenses including nonjoinder of the mortgagee (First Guaranty), waiver/abandonment, vagueness of the Restrictions, and that her mobile home is not a temporary trailer (or that removal is unnecessary so long as it is unoccupied).
- The trial court found a covenant violation and ordered removal of the mobile home within 30 days; Mann appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mortgagee (First Guaranty) was an indispensable party | Mortgagee had notice; its mortgage likely does not extend to the trailer; complete relief can be afforded without joinder | First Guaranty should be joined because an injunction removing the trailer would impair/destroy its security interest | Court: First Guaranty not indispensable under La. C.C.P. art. 641; denial of nonjoinder affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs waited too long / have unclean hands | Plaintiffs acted promptly after noticing violation and sued within two years under La. C.C. art. 781 | Plaintiffs delayed action against original placer (Apee) and thus have unclean hands | Court: Plaintiffs timely filed within two years; unclean hands claim rejected |
| Whether the mobile home/trailer and its use violate the Restrictions | The home was moved onto the lot (not constructed there) and is used as a residence, violating both Dwelling Size and Temporary Structures provisions | Modern immobilized mobile homes differ from old trailers; Restrictions ambiguous or inapplicable; occupancy without removal should be allowed | Court: Evidence supports that the structure was moved onto the lot and used as a residence; it violates the Restrictions; no manifest error |
| Whether removal (mandatory injunction) was proper relief | Removal is necessary to enforce the Dwelling Size restriction and subdivision plan; injunctions may mandate removal | If only occupancy is prohibited, removal is unnecessary so long as it is not lived in | Court: Mandatory injunction ordering removal affirmed — Dwelling Size provision independently supports removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Head v. Gray, 938 So.2d 1084 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2006) (analyzes whether "mobile home"/"trailer" counts as a temporary structure and stresses examining the subdivision’s general plan)
- Mouille v. Henry, 321 So.2d 377 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1975) (uses dictionary definition treating a mobile home as a trailer used as a permanent dwelling)
- Smith v. DeVincent, 322 So.2d 257 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1975) (describes single-unit mobile homes as trailers capable of highway transport)
- Mitchell v. Killins, 408 So.2d 969 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1981) (holds placing and occupying a house trailer/mobile home on a lot can violate both building and use restrictions)
- Chapman v. Fisher, 370 So.2d 162 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1979) (confirms injunctive relief, including mandatory removal, is appropriate to enforce valid property restrictions)
- Jackson Square Towne House Home Ass’n, Inc. v. Hannigan, 867 So.2d 960 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2004) (articulates standard of review for factual findings on covenant violations)