135 So. 3d 9
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Betsy and John Hooper own adjoining tracts in East Baton Rouge Parish; Betsy has lived on her tract continuously since 1965. Together the tracts form the Hooper property.
- CJS Development, L.L.C. purchased 52.37 acres from the LeSage family in 2006; the purchase tract bordered the Hooper property.
- An old fence line (installed ~1931) ran inside the LeSage record boundary at the Hooper edge; Hoopers and neighbors treated that fence line as the boundary.
- CJS began clearing trees on the tract after acquisition; Hoopers sued in December 2006 seeking injunction and claimed 30-year acquisitive prescription to a strip (~3/8 acre) up to the old fence line.
- Trial court found the Hoopers acquired the disputed strip by 30-year acquisitive prescription, awarded $12,500 in damages for trees removed, dismissed CJS’s warranty-of-title third‑party demand against the LeSages, and denied treble damages and personal liability for CJS members.
- CJS and the LeSage defendants appealed; the court of appeal affirmed in all respects and denied Hoopers’ request for treble damages on answer to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hoopers proved 30‑year acquisitive prescription to the strip outside deed survey | Hoopers: continuous, public, peaceable, unequivocal corporeal possession to fence line since 1965 | CJS/LeSage: possession did not meet elements; deeds/survey show record boundary | Held: Trial court factual finding affirmed — testimony supported 30‑year prescription to fence line |
| Whether CJS/ predecessors possessed the strip with just title for 10 years | Hoopers: N/A (contested only prescriptive title) | CJS: argued they/ predecessors had just title and 10‑year possession precluding Hoopers’ claim | Held: No merit — trial court’s possession findings control; 30‑year prescription by Hoopers prevailed |
| Whether trees had separable value or damages were recoverable for removal | Hoopers: trees had market/aesthetic value; expert established value | CJS: standing trees are component of land; no separate value shown | Held: Damages for trespass/tree removal (tort) recoverable; $12,500 award supported by expert testimony |
| Admissibility of urban forestry expert testimony on tree valuation | Hoopers: expert qualified to opine on tree value and aesthetic loss | CJS: expert testimony should be excluded or discounted | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting/crediting expert evidence |
| Entitlement to treble damages under La. R.S. 3:4278.1 | Hoopers: requested treble damages for tree destruction | CJS: conduct was not willful; acted in reliance on survey/good faith | Held: Treble damages denied — court found negligent removal after notice, not willful/punitive violation |
| Whether individual members (Blount, Cantu) are personally liable | Hoopers: sought to hold members jointly/solidarily liable | CJS/defense: actions were in corporate capacity; LLC shield applies | Held: Members not personally liable; no evidence to pierce LLC veil |
| Whether CJS’s warranty‑of‑title third‑party claim against LeSages should succeed | CJS: paid lump sum for 52.37 acres and seeks pro rata for lost ~3/8 acre and tree value | LeSages/Hoopers: sale was lump sum; art. 2494 governs | Held: Trial court properly dismissed third‑party demand — shortage < 1/20 and sale was lump sum, so no price reduction; tree damages independent of warranty claim |
Key Cases Cited
- King’s Farm, Inc. v. Concordia Parish Police Jury, 709 So.2d 953 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1998) (ownership in boundary action may be overcome by acquisitive prescription)
- Secret Cove, L.L.C. v. Thomas, 862 So.2d 1010 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (standards for acquisitive prescription; possession inch‑by‑inch or within enclosures)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (deference to trial court credibility findings; manifest error standard)
- Callison v. Livingston Timber, Inc., 849 So.2d 649 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (damages for timber trespass and standards for assessing compensation)
- Charming Charlie, Inc. v. Perkins Rowe Assocs., L.L.C., 97 So.3d 595 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2012) (LLC is a separate legal entity; members not personally liable absent veil‑piercing)
- Riggins v. Dixie Shoring Co., Inc., 590 So.2d 1164 (La. 1991) (standards for holding individuals personally liable for corporate obligations)