340 So.3d 574
La.2020Background
- From 1962–1973 the federal government constructed navigation works (locks, weirs, diversion canal) that raised and maintained water levels in the Catahoula Basin; the State executed an Act of Assurances promising to furnish lands and to indemnify the United States.
- Plaintiffs (a certified class of landowners subdivided into “Lake Plaintiffs” and “Swamp Plaintiffs”) sued in 2006 for inverse condemnation (uncompensated taking/obstruction of natural drainage) and for mineral royalties the State received from leases over the affected lands.
- Trial court found the State liable for inverse condemnation (holding the area was river banks and servitudes were obstructed), awarded multi‑million dollar damages and royalties, and denied the State’s prescription defenses by applying Cooper and the continuing‑tort rule.
- The court of appeal largely affirmed the findings of taking and the continuing‑tort prescription analysis, but one judge dissented that La. R.S.13:5111 (three‑year prescriptive period for takings by the State) controlled and barred the claims.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to prescription and held that inverse condemnation claims against the State are governed by La. R.S.13:5111 (three‑year prescription from the date of taking), that the plaintiffs were on notice no later than 1973, and therefore the compensation claims were prescribed; it affirmed plaintiff entitlement to pursue mineral royalties under civil‑law remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which prescriptive period governs plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims? | Crooks: claims are damages to immovables governed by La. C.C. art. 3493 (one year) and/or continuing tort prevents prescription. | State: La. R.S.13:5111 (three years for takings by the State) or federal 28 U.S.C. §2501; alternatively, other shorter statutes. | Held: La. R.S.13:5111 controls; claims are for compensation for state taking and are prescribed. |
| Who is the legal “taker” for prescription purposes (U.S. or State)? | Crooks: the U.S. (operator/manager of project) effectuated the taking, so La. R.S.13:5111 inapplicable. | State: by Act of Assurances the State assumed lands/obligations and is the taker responsible for compensation. | Held: State is the taker (contractually/legally assumed role); State’s prescriptive statute applies. |
| Can the continuing‑tort doctrine delay prescription for ongoing flooding/servitude interferences? | Crooks: each continuing interference is a separate tort so prescription has not run. | State: taking by appropriation is not a tort; continuing‑tort analysis is inapplicable to inverse condemnation; a statute specific to takings governs. | Held: continuing‑tort doctrine inapplicable to appropriation claims; courts erred relying on Cooper. |
| Do plaintiffs have a cause of action against the State for mineral royalties (or is recovery limited to operators under La. R.S.30:10)? | Crooks: State received royalties from leases on plaintiffs’ lands and may be liable under civil‑law property/possessor restitution doctrines (La. C.C. art. 488). | State: relief for royalties is an unjust‑enrichment claim and plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy is against unit operator under La. R.S.30:10. | Held: plaintiffs stated a cause of action against the State for royalties under La. C.C. art. 488; State’s exception no cause of action is overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Louisiana Dep’t of Public Works, 870 So.2d 315 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2004) (appellate decision that applied tort/continuing‑tort analysis to flooding/servitude interference)
- Hawthorne v. La. Dep’t of Pub. Works, 540 So.2d 1261 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1989) (holding flood takings are appropriations, prescription under La. R.S.13:5111 applies)
- Succession of Rovira v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Port of New Orleans, 418 So.2d 1382 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1982) (state or delegated local entity treated as taker despite federal construction/operation)
- State, Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev. v. Chambers Inv. Co., 595 So.2d 598 (La. 1992) (describing inverse condemnation remedy and constitutional right to compensation)
- Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246 (La. 2011) (doctrine on subsequent purchasers and accrual in continuing‑wrong contexts)