193 So. 3d 1184
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Neighbors Hyman (1300 Nashville) and Puckett (1308 Nashville) disputed a narrow strip of land behind Hyman’s pool house (the "Disputed Strip").
- Pucketts’ 2013 survey indicated Hyman’s wood fence encroached on Puckett property; parties agreed to rebuild the fence and Hyman planned a chain-link fence on the alleged property line.
- During construction the Pucketts objected; Hymans filed for preliminary and permanent injunctions (Dec. 2014) to allow construction and to remove Puckett encroachments.
- The court set the injunction hearing to be decided on verified pleadings, affidavits, and memoranda only; no live testimony was presented and the parties agreed the matter was not set for trial.
- At the April 2015 hearing the trial court granted relief, declared Hymans owner of the Disputed Strip, ordered removal of portions of the Pucketts’ fence, enjoined interference with Hymans’ fence construction, and required a $5,000 bond; Pucketts appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hyman) | Defendant's Argument (Puckett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could adjudicate ownership during a preliminary injunction proceeding | Ownership was necessarily at issue to permit removal and construction requested in injunction | Adjudication of ownership requires ordinary proceeding; not raised as declaratory relief | Court: Trial court erred — ownership must be tried in an ordinary proceeding; vacated and remanded |
| Whether mandatory relief (ordering fence removal) could be granted on preliminary injunction record | Mandatory relief was appropriate to prevent continued encroachment and protect Hymans’ rights | Mandatory injunctions require a full evidentiary hearing (preponderance) because they are equivalent to permanent relief | Court: Error — mandatory preliminary injunction improper without full evidentiary hearing; vacated |
| Whether the court could cumulate preliminary and permanent injunctions in one summary proceeding | Petition sought both preliminary and permanent relief; consolidation appropriate for efficiency | Cumulation of preliminary (summary) and permanent (ordinary) injunctions is procedurally improper absent stipulation | Court: Error — cumulation impermissible; must try permanent relief as ordinary proceeding |
| Whether the injunction preserved the status quo and stayed within preliminary-injunction bounds | Relief sought to prevent interference and preserve Hymans’ ability to enclose yard | The injunction altered status quo by adjudicating ownership and ordering affirmative removal, effectively granting permanent relief | Court: The injunction went beyond preserving status quo; trial court abused legal bounds and must retry on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Denta-Max v. Maxicare Louisiana, Inc., 671 So.2d 995 (La. 1996) (mandatory preliminary injunctions require a full evidentiary hearing and higher proof because they equate to permanent relief)
- Bollinger Machine Shop & Shipyard, Inc. v. U.S. Marine, Inc., 595 So.2d 756 (La. App. 1992) (same principle regarding evidentiary requirements for mandatory relief)
- Desire Narcotics Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Hosps., 970 So.2d 17 (La. App. 2007) (preliminary injunctions are interlocutory and preserve the status quo pending trial)
- Bank One, Nat. Ass’n v. Velten, 917 So.2d 454 (La. App. 2005) (principal demand must be determined at an ordinary proceeding even if preliminary hearing touches merits)
- Patrick v. Patrick, 227 So.2d 162 (La. App. 1969) (trial court may not decide controversies not regularly brought before it; limits of Article 862 relief)