Wilkins v. City of Shreveport
124 So. 3d 20
| La. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mrs. Wilkins seeks to be buried next to her husband in Greenwood Cemetery and requests the sidewalk adjacent to the Leonard Johnson Wilkins family plot be removed at city expense.
- The sidewalk ends at the foot of Mr. Wilkins’ grave, and Mrs. Wilkins argues removal creates space for an additional burial site within the family plot.
- Suhor Industries (through Boxeo, sexton duties) and SPAR governed cemetery operations; city ownership limits authority to create new plots and approve sale, with competitive bidding required.
- Mrs. Wilkins contends a March 2007 meeting created an agreement permitting sidewalk removal; the city denies any contract or authority to remove property.
- By 2009–2010, the city assumed cemetery management and advised Mrs. Wilkins her options were to stack or relocate within the existing bought/deeded plots; trial court ultimately ordered sidewalk removal if necessary to accommodate burial without creating a new plot, at city expense.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court reasonably declined to require Mrs. Wilkins to pay additional expenses and that the judgment complied with the applicable constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in ordering sidewalk removal at city expense | Wilkins seeks removal to allow burial next to husband | City has no authority to create new plot or remove sidewalk; cost shifting inappropriate | No error; trial court validly ordered if needed, at city expense |
| Whether there was an enforceable agreement obligating removal | March 2007 meeting created binding understanding | No contract or authority established | Agreement not proven; no binding contract found |
| Whether city should be responsible for costs beyond sidewalk removal | Cost should be borne by city | Costs beyond removal not properly allocated | Proper to not require Mrs. Wilkins to pay additional expenses; costs assessed as determined by court |
| Whether SPAR/City Council procedures were required for plot changes | Procedural requirements could be bypassed | Council approval and bidding may be necessary for new plots | No need for new plot; court could accommodate within existing boundaries under stated conditions |
| Whether the trial court’s findings are manifestly erroneous | Record supports the need for removal | Record lacks contract and authority | Findings reasonable; manifest error not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Detraz v. Lee, 950 So.2d 557 (La. 2007) (manifest error standard of review in civil cases)
- Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 874 So.2d 90 (La. 2004) (manifest error standard of review; appellate deference to trier of fact)
- Smith v. City of Shreveport, 73 So.3d 496 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2011) (evaluation of credibility and factual inferences not disturbed on review)
- LeBlanc v. Stevenson, 770 So.2d 766 (La. 2000) (de novo fact-finding when reversible error occurs)
- State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carter, 77 So.3d 1036 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2011) (standard of reviewed appellate facts; not disturbed absent clear error)