343 So.3d 831
La. Ct. App.2022Background
- Lonesome Development and the Town of Abita Springs executed a Development Agreement (PUD Agreement) in January 2018 under Louisiana’s Development Agreement Law (LDAL) to develop the 168-acre “Abita Meadows” PUD; the Board of Aldermen approved the preliminary plat.
- After municipal engineers approved infrastructure plans, Mayor Lemons authorized construction to proceed in May 2018; Lonesome cleared the site and installed ponds, utilities, roads and other infrastructure and invested over $6 million.
- In July 2019 the town’s attorney sent a letter asserting ordinance violations (including failure to submit a final plat within one year and tree‑removal violations) and declaring the PUD null and void; town officials then stopped inspections and work.
- Lonesome sued in August 2019 for breach, specific performance, injunctive relief, and damages; Abita Springs asserted the PUD had been terminated and raised procedural exceptions.
- On June 3, 2021 (amended April 5, 2022), the trial court held Abita Springs substantially breached the PUD Agreement, ordered specific performance and an injunction, and awarded Lonesome $4.9 million plus attorney’s fees and costs; Abita Springs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lonesome) | Defendant's Argument (Abita Springs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the municipality unilaterally terminate the PUD Agreement under LDAL §4780.23 and render the court without jurisdiction? | Termination under §4780.23 requires substantial evidence and is subject to judicial review; Lonesome sued to enforce the agreement. | §4780.23 permits municipal termination after periodic review; Ordinance 519 validly terminated the PUD so the court lacks jurisdiction. | Court: Municipality cannot unilaterally terminate by ordinance without proving noncompliance; trial court properly retained jurisdiction and denied exceptions. |
| Which controls timing for final plat submission: local ordinance (one‑year rule) or the PUD Agreement/Flow Chart? | The PUD Agreement incorporated a Flow Chart that governs sequencing; final plat due after infrastructure completion, not within one year. | Ordinance §9‑806 makes the PUD null if final plat not submitted within one year of preliminary approval. | Court: The parties’ agreement and Flow Chart govern; the one‑year ordinance provision did not apply to this PUD. |
| Did failures to obtain/perform inspections justify termination? | Inspection issues were addressed; engineers performed acceptance testing and issues were being remedied. | Lonesome failed to follow inspection procedures and thus breached. | Court: Although initial inspection lapses occurred, issues were resolved and were insufficient to justify termination. |
| Did Lonesome violate tree‑removal ordinance so as to justify termination? | Grading plan showing clear‑cutting was submitted and approved during preliminary plat process; PUD Agreement waived tree removal fees and the parties treated grading plan as controlling. | Lonesome clear‑cut without required tree‑removal permit, violating Ordinance §9‑703. | Court: Parties’ conduct and the approved grading plan show the PUD terms controlled; retroactive enforcement of the tree ordinance was improper. |
| Was striking of Abita Springs’ economic‑loss expert and denial of new trial reversible error? | Town: Exclusion of expert evidence was erroneous and justified a new trial. | Lonesome: Town failed to proffer the excluded expert testimony, so appellate review is precluded. | Court: Town did not proffer the expert’s testimony; exclusion not properly preserved for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. United Svcs. Auto. Ass'n Cas. Ins. Co., 1 So.3d 512 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (trial court cannot consider evidence not formally introduced into the record)
- Borcik v. Crosby Tugs, LLC, 222 So.3d 672 (La. 2017) (statutes must be interpreted in light of their purpose when literal reading yields absurd results)
- Salinger Grp., Inc. v. City‑Parish of East Baton Rouge, 309 So.3d 373 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2020) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Strachan v. Eichin, 195 So.3d 61 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2016) (de novo review of contract interpretation; manifest‑error standard for factual findings relevant to contract interpretation)
- Cajun Constructors, Inc. v. Fleming Const. Co., Inc., 951 So.2d 208 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (contract amendments/cancellations require mutual consent unless law provides otherwise)
- L & A Contracting Co., Inc. v. Ram Indus. Coatings, Inc., 762 So.2d 1223 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2000) (same principle regarding unilateral contract modification)