Parish of St. Charles v. R.H. Creager, Inc.
55 So. 3d 884
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- St. Charles Parish expropriated 16,410.18 sq ft of Parcel A-2 for drainage/levee work and later awarded damages to Creager and the McDonalds.
- Consent judgment (Sept 28, 1990) granted ownership to Parish, reserving mineral rights and defendants’ rights to compensation, fees, costs, and interest.
- Trial court later awarded Creager and McDonalds $436,106.45 plus interest and a consent judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs; Parish did not pay.
- On mandamus petition (May 2009) to compel payment, Parish urged mandamus not available; trial court denied.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding mandamus may be issued to compel payment in expropriation cases, applying levee-district payment provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may compel payment of a final expropriation judgment. | Creager/ McDonalds: payment is ministerial due to expropriation; exclude discretionary appropriation. | Parish: payment requires legislative appropriation; mandamus not available. | Yes; mandamus may be issued; payment is a ministerial duty in expropriation contexts. |
| Does the expropriation context create a de facto levee/district mandamus exception? | Creager/McDonalds: exemption applies to levee districts expropriating land. | Parish: exception does not apply to non‑merged levee districts; Parish not a de facto levee. | Not a de facto levee district, but legislature's intent supports mandamus to enforce payment of just compensation. |
| Does due process require mandamus to enforce payment of just compensation in expropriation? | Payment must be compelled to avoid due process violations by allowing state to withhold compensation. | Due process not violated; funds require appropriation; mandamus would bypass process. | Due process requires timely payment; mandamus is permissible to enforce payment. |
| What is the applicable standard for mandamus in this context relative to Sugarland guidance? | Sugarland suggested State could abandon projects and avoid payment; distinguishable. | Sugarland controls where appropriate; no automatic payment obligation. | Sugarland distinguishable; here, expropriation framework supports mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parish of St. Charles v. R.H. Creager, Inc., 975 So.2d 742 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (reversal and remand regarding damages; mandamus potential)
- State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Sugarland Ventures, Inc., 476 So.2d 970 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985) (expropriation final judgments; State may abandon projects; not controlling here)
- Hoag v. State, 889 So.2d 1019 (La. 1 Cir. 2004) (immunity and waiver themes in state litigation)
- Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (Sup. Ct. 1960) (due process framework for governmental adjudication of private rights)
- Kimble v. Bd. of Comm'rs for Grand Prairie Levee Dist., 649 So.2d 1112 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1995) (expropriation and levee-district funding context)