Thomas Accardo VS Chenier Property Partners, L.L.C. and Park Properties, L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 CA 0825 THOMAS ACCARDO VERSUS CHENIER PROPERTY PARTNERS LLC AND PARK PROPERTIES LLC Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 Appealed from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Docket Number 200813057 The Honorable Raymond S Childress Judge Presiding Stephen K Conroy Tom D Snyder Counsel for Plaintiffs Appellants Rebecca E Fenton Robert Lampp Susan wife ofand Metairie LA Edward Roberts Jr and Rosemarie de Thomas Accardo Marla wife of and In Tour and IntervenorAppellee Greenleaves Master Association Bernard S Smith Counsel for Defendant Appellee St Tammany Parish Covington LA BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON P 0 Cz Mee s JJ WHIPPLE J This matter is before us on appeal by plaintiffs Thomas Accardo Marla and Robert Lampp Susan and Edward Roberts Jr and Rosemarie de la Tour from a judgment of the trial court granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of St Tammany Parish and denying plaintiff cross motion for summary s judgment For the following reasons we dismiss the appeal and remand the matter FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 9 2008 plaintiffs residents of Chateau Loire a residential area in Greenleaves Subdivision in Mandeville Louisiana filed a petition for injunctive relief and for damages purportedly caused by the widening and redirecting of a drainage ditch within a servitude encumbering plaintiffs properties The activities complained of were allegedly undertaken to accommodate the development of Chenier Apartments located on U Hwy 190 immediately S adjacent to plaintiffs properties Named as defendants were Chenier Property Partners L Chenier and Park Properties L Park C C developers of the Chenier Apartment Development z In their petition plaintiffs contended that in November 2007 Chenier without authority began widening and redirecting a drainage servitude and cut down several trees on plaintiffs properties Plaintiffs further averred that Chenier diverted waters from its construction site into the drainage servitude causing the diverted waters to run through plaintiffs properties Although Thomas Accardo was the original plaintiff Marla and Robert Lampp Susan and Edward Roberts Jr and Rosemarie de la Tour subsequently petitioned to join as party plaintiffs Greenleaves 2 Master Association GMA filed a petition for intervention seeking a judicial finding that the drainage servitude at issue exists in favor of GMA and that it was entitled to compensation for any and all damages to its servitude and restoration of the servitude to its original condition 2 On July 14 2008 Chenier and Park filed affirmative defenses and answers to the suit contending 1 that the Master Drainage Plan for the Chenier Development had been presented to and approved by the Parish and the City of Mandeville 2 that plaintiffs property is subject to a drainage servitude dedicated to St Tammany Parish the work performed within the servitude was consistent with the purpose of that servitude and the work was authorized by the Parish 3 that plaintiffs claims are barred by prescription preemption statutes of limitations and the doctrines of laches and estoppel and 4 the removal of or any trees or shrubs from the Parish drainage servitude was consistent with the s use and nature of a drainage servitude and was performed in good faith Plaintiffs subsequently amended their petition to name the Parish of St Tammany hereinafter the Parish as a defendant Chenier and Park filed motions for summary judgment seeking a judicial determination as to whether plaintiffs properties were subject to a drainage servitude in favor of the Parish Plaintiffs and GMA filed a cross motion for summary judgment on the same issue By judgment dated July 20 2009 the trial court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by Chenier and Park denied the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs and GMA and ruled that the thirty drainage servitude at issue that runs along the border between foot Greenleaves Subdivision and the Chenier property was dedicated to St Tammany Parish and that St Tammany Parish is the beneficiary of that servitude The trial court further ordered that Chenier and Park be dismissed from the suit with prejudice This judgment was not appealed The Parish then filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether it was liable to plaintiffs or GMA for the destruction of trees located within the Parish drainage servitude between Greenleaves Subdivision and the s Chenier development Plaintiffs filed a cross motion for partial summary 3 judgment on the issue of whether they are entitled to compensation from the Parish for the taking of their property The cross motions for summary judgment were heard before the trial court on October 9 2009 At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court granted the Parish motion for summary judgment s and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment Thus a judgment was signed on October 28 2009 dismissing the claims of plaintiffs and GMA against the Parish for any liability for destruction of any tree previously located within the Parish of St Tammany drainage servitude that s exists between Greenleaves Subdivision and the Chenier development that occurred during the expansion of the drainage ditch within that servitude as claimed by plaintiffs and intervenor in their petitions The judgment further ordered that plaintiffs cross motion seeking summary judgment that they are entitled to compensation from the Parish for the taking and damaging of their or property was denied Written reasons for judgment were subsequently issued by the trial court on January 12 2010 at plaintiffs request The trial court provided the following explanation in its written reasons for judgment At issue is the liability of the Parish for its authorization allowing the widening of a ditch along the border of the plaintiffs property in Greenleaves Subdivision and the Chenier development in Mandeville Louisiana The border is subject to a servitude of drainage preexisting the development of Greenleaves During the course of the Chenier Property construction the parish authorized widening the drainage ditch by clearing trees within the servitude which was done predominantly on the Chenier property Plaintiffs urge the court to find that this widening amounts to unauthorized taking of their property by the Parish which the court declines to do so The court has previously ruled that the servitude of drainage preexisted the development of Greenleaves Maintenance tree removal and expansion of the ditch within the servitude is an to the maintenance of a dedicated servitude accessory right Additionally when the Parish contracted with others for the work to be done it acted within their discretionary authority for which it is statutorily immune from suit Plaintiffs filed the instant appeal contending that the trial court erred in 1 finding that St Tammany Parish could authorize the removal of trees and the widening of a drainage servitude on the plaintiffs property in order to receive waters from an adjacent subdivision that previously flowed through undeveloped land without paying just compensation to the landowners on whose property the drainage servitude is located and 2 concluding that the Parish is immune from suit for the actions described above DISCUSSION At the outset the initial issue that we must address in this appeal is whether the trial court judgment of October 28 2009 is a final appealable s judgment Appellate courts have the duty to determine sua sponte whether their subject matter jurisdiction exists even when the parties do not raise the issue Motorola Inc v Associated Indemnity Corporation 2002 1351 La App I Cir 10 867 So 2d 723 725 726 03 22 Under Louisiana law a final judgment is one that determines the merits of a controversy in whole or in part LSAC art 1841 A final judgment P C must be identified as such by appropriate language LSA C art 1918 In P contrast an interlocutory judgment does not determine the merits but only preliminary matters in the course of an action LSAC art 1841 P C An interlocutory judgment is appealable only when expressly provided by law LSAC art 2083 P C C A valid judgment must be precise definite and certain Laird v St Tammany Parish Safe Harbor 20020045 La App I Cir 12 836 So 02 20 2d 364 365 A final appealable judgment must contain decretal language and it must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered the party against whom the ruling is ordered and the relief that is granted or denied See Carter 5 v Williamson Eve Center 2001 2016 La App I Cir 11 837 So 2d 02 27 43 44 As noted above as an appellate court we are required to note our lack of jurisdiction if such exists Although this matter was docketed for appeal on review we find that the judgment in the instant case does not contain proper decretal language necessary for a final appealable judgment Specifically although the October 28 2009 judgment purports to grant the Parish motion for s summary judgment and deny plaintiffs motion for summary judgment it does not dismiss the Parish as a defendant in these proceedings nor does it dismiss the plaintiffs suit Thus it is unclear from the judgment whether the entirety of plaintiffs case is disposed of or dismissed by the judgment If in fact the trial court intended to dispose of the only remaining claim against the Parish the judgment lacks the appropriate decretal language to do so Instead it is unclear whether the trial court intended that the judgment dismiss any and all of the remaining claims asserted by the plaintiffs against the Parish i the suit in its e entirety a determination which must be evident from the language of the judgment without resort to pleadings filed or reference to other documents in the record See Laird v St Tammany Parish Safe Harbor 836 So 2d at 366 Moreover without this necessary decretal language it is unclear whether the judgment is a partial summary judgment which requires the trial court express s designation that the judgment is final and appealable and that there is no just reason for delay pursuant to LSAC art 1915 P C See Motorola Inc v Associated Indemnity Corporation 867 So 2d at 732 Thus in the absence of such decretal language the judgment before us is defective and cannot be considered as a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal LSA C art 1915 see Carter v Williamson Eye P B Center 837 So 2d at 44 In the absence of a valid final judgment this court lacks Ce jurisdiction to review this matter See Laird v St Tammany Parish Safe Harbor 836 So 2d at 366 Jenkins v Recovery Technology Investors 20021788 La App 1 Cir 6 858 So 2d 598 600 Johnson v Mount Pilgrim Baptist 03 27 Church 20050337 La App 1 Cir 3 934 So 2d 66 67 Therefore we 06 24 dismiss the appeal but without prejudice and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings Once a proper final judgment has been signed a new appeal and a request for expedited docketing thereof may be filed Assessment of appeal costs are to await a final determination of this suit APPEAL DISMISSED REMANDED II
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.
