Jake A. SALTAMACHIA, Jr. et al.,
v.
PARISH OF JEFFERSON and the Jefferson Parish Council.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
Dаrrell J. Saltamachia, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellants.
*1198 David L. Colvin, Gretna, for defendants-appellees.
Before KLIEBERT, C.J., and DUFRESNE, and GOTHARD, JJ.
DUFRESNE, Judge.
This is an appeal by Jake Saltamachiа, Jr., et al., plaintiffs-appellants, from a judgment dismissing their suit for failure to state a cause of action against defеndants-appellees, the Parish of Jefferson and the Jefferson Parish Council. For the following reasons we vaсate that judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
This is a zoning case. Plaintiffs' petition alleges thе following facts. They are the owners of a lot in Jefferson Parish which is presently zoned residential (R-1). In late 1989, they filed аn application with the Parish Planning Department to have the property rezoned to neighborhood commercial (C-1) on the grounds that the tract is presently surrounded by other commercial properties and that its valuе for residential use has thus been diminished. Upon denial of this application, they sought review of this decision by the Parish Cоuncil, which also denied them the relief sought. They further allege that the action by the Council was unreasonable, and an abuse of its powers.
In the prayer of their petition, plaintiffs asked for judgment "ordering that the property in question be re-zoned from residential, R-1, to commercial, C-1", by way of a writ of mandamus or alternatively by mandatory injunctive relief. The Parish Council urged in response to the petition and prayer, an exception of no cause of action, asserting that the court was without the authority to compel a legislative body to enact a particular ordinance. Apparently subscribing to this reasoning, the trial judge upheld the exception and dismissed plaintiffs' suit without prejudice. While we tend to agree that the specific relief sought by the plaintiffs lies beyond the power of the district court, to grant, we nonetheless vacate the judgment of dismissal because in our view it is based upon an overly technical construction of the pleadings.
Article 862 of La.Code Civ.Pro. provides that:
Except as provided in Article 1703, a final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleаdings and the latter contain no prayer for general and equitable relief.
In the present case, our inquiry is thus whethеr proof of the facts recited in the petition would entitle plaintiffs to any relief, rather than simply whether such fаcts would entitle them to the specific relief sought in their prayer. See Williams v. Board of Zoning Adjustments,
Plaintiffs clearly allege that the continued R-1 zoning of their property is an unreasonable exercise of the police power of the pаrish because commercial development of surrounding properties has rendered their lot unsuitable for suсh a restrictive use. In our opinion, these allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action justiciable in the courts.
We are aware, of course, that zoning ordinances are not lightly set aside by the courts, but thаt does not change the fact that such ordinances are subject to judicial scrutiny. In Four States Realty Co., Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge,
The authority to enact zoning regulations flows from the police power of the various governmental bodies; zoning is a legislative function. Courts will not and cannot substitute their wisdom for that of a legislative body or other zoning authority except when there is an abuse of discretion оr an excessive use of power. However, the exercise of a police power in zoning cannоt be made without substantial relation to the health, safety and general welfare of the public. All ordinances аre presumed valid; whoever attacks the constitutionality of an ordinance bears the burden of proving his allegation. (citations omitted)
*1199 Thus, while the party attacking the validity of a zoning ordinance has a difficult burden of proof, he nonetheless has a right to his day in court to attempt to meet that burden. The plaintiffs' pleadings here have suffiсiently apprised both the defendants and the court of the nature of their dispute with the parish governing authority, and they are therefore entitled to have this dispute heard by the court.
As to the kind of relief to which plaintiffs may be entitlеd in the event they prevail at trial, we need not determine at this time. We do note, however, that the defendants' assertion that a legislative body cannot be compelled by the courts to enact a specific ordinance rezoning property from R-1 to C-1, is probably correct. Although we find no Louisiana case which has directly аddressed this issue, we do find cases in other states which have. Thus, in City of Punta Gorda v. Morningstar,
We finally рoint out that several Louisiana cases have held that declaratory judgment is an appropriate rеmedy for parties challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance, Villa Del Rey Citizens Assn. v. City of Baton Rouge,
In any event, it is our opinion that plaintiffs have stated a cause of action in this matter and for the foregoing reasons we vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT VACATED, REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.