Brett T. Barker, Melissa Robichaux Barker, Edward Fredrick McCulla, II and Cheryllyn Redmond McCulla VS Beau Matthew Blanchard
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 0801 BRETT T BARKER MELISSA ROBICHAUX BARKER EDWARD FREDRICK McCULLA II AND CHERYLLYN REDMOND McCULLA VERSUS EAU MATTHEW BLANCHARD Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 On Appeal from the 32nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Trial Court No 156 255 The Honorable George J Larke Judge Presiding Philip A Spence Houma LA Attorney for Defendant Appellant Beau Matthew Blanchard Ray L Rhymes Houma LA Attorney for PlaintiffsAppellees Brett T Barker Melissa Robichaux Barker Edward Frederick McCulla II Cheryllyn Redmond McCulla BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J CARTER C J This suit was instituted by property owners seeking to enjoin the defendant Beau Blanchard from feeding birds and storing commercial lawn equipment on his neighboring property in violation of the restrictive covenants applicable to their subdivision Blanchard now appeals the trial s court judgment enjoining him or those acting on his behalf from feeding any birds on his property and from storing maintaining or otherwise operating commercial lawn equipment on the property in violation of the restrictive covenant Blanchard contends that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding violations of the restrictive covenants and also in failing to find that the time period for claiming a violation had prescribed The pertinent restrictive covenants state a 8 No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or engaged in upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood c 8 No business or commercial enterprise shall be erected established maintained operated or carried on upon any lot The trial court heard the testimony of the plaintiffs and Blanchard and reviewed photographs showing the presence of numerous birds and large commercial lawn equipment parked in Blanchard yard s Based on that evidence the trial court determined that Blanchard had violated the restrictive covenants After reviewing the record herein we find no error in the trial court determination that Blanchard activities were in violation of s s the subdivision restrictive covenants s 2 The trial court further determined that this action to enforce restrictive covenant 8 had not prescribed under LSAC art 781 which provides c C No action for injunction or for damages on account of the violation of a building restriction may be brought after two years from the commencement of a noticeable violation After the lapse of this period the immovable on which the violation occurred is freed of the restriction that has been violated The twoyear period set forth in LSAC art 781 applies to each C noticeable violation Investment Management Services Inc v Village of Folsom 000832 La App 1 Cir 5111101 808 So 597 605 2d After review we find no error in the trial court determination that s the action had not prescribed Within the year prior to trial Blanchard acquired a large John Deere tractor which according to one neighbor is visible six feet above the fence line causes homes to vibrate when it is started and gives off a diesel fuel smell Although Blanchard stored smallerscale grass cutting equipment at his home prior to acquiring the large John Deere tractor there had been no subversion of the original scheme resulting in a change in the neighborhood CE Diefenthal v Longue Vue Management Corporation 561 So 44 56 La 1990 2d Thus we find that the action was timely filed For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with URCA Rule 2 16 Costs of this appeal are assessed B 1 to Beau Matthew Blanchard AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
