128 So. 3d 678
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gandy sues for removal of trees allegedly on his property; Defendants contend trees lie on boundary and are immovable; City Court granted exceptions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; statute La.Code Civ.P. art. 4847 excludes title disputes from city courts; trees are immovable components under La.Civ.Code arts. 462-463; ownership of the trees would require determining title to the underlying land; Court affirms dismissal with prejudice; costs taxed to Gandy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City Court had subject matter jurisdiction over a claim involving title to immovable property | Gandy argues city court can hear the damages claim without determining title | Key Realty and Merryman argue Art. 4847 excludes title disputes; trees are immovable components | City Court lacked jurisdiction; affirm |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Young Properties, 893 So.2d 895 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2004) (tree ownership resolved under immovable-property framework; city court had no jurisdiction to determine ownership)
- Chavers v. Bright Truck Leasing, 945 So.2d 838 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2006) (de novo review on subject matter jurisdiction; governs jurisdiction analysis)
- King, v. Young Properties (cited within King v. Young Properties), 893 So.2d 895 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2004) (treatment of trees as immovable components and ownership implication)