The Board of Commissioners of the North Lafouche Conservation, Levee & Drainage District VS Del-Mar Farms, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LC2Ud IANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CdR 1IT N0. 2013 CA 1604 THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NORTH LAFOURCHE CONSERVATION, LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT VERSUS DEL- MAR FARMS, INC. udgment rendered ( u+ A 2 } f ru Appealed from the 17' Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Lafourche, Louisiana Trial Court No. 90543 Honorable Jerome J. Barbera, III, Judge ATfORNEY FOR PATRICK M. AMEDEE PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT THIBODAUX, LA THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NORTH LAFOURCHE CONSERVATION, LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT WOODY FALGOUST ATTORNEY FOR THIBODAUX, LA DEFENDANT-APPELLEE DEL- MAR FARMS, INC. BEFORE: ll C C n J PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, JJ. C iCU es / 1 y, l c ,- aS PETTIGREW, J. The Board of Commissione s of the No h Lafourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District (" NLCLDD") appeals a judgment awarding Del- Mar Farms, Inc. (" Del- Mar") a total of $567, 147.00, plus costs, legal inte est, and $ 100, 000. 00 in attorney fees, as just compensation following the expropriation of land for the purpose of constructing a flood protection levee in Lafourche Parish. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 25, 2001, NLCLDD filed a petition for expropriation of approximately 55 acres of land construct a owned flood Delaune used Del- Mar. NLCLDD' s purpose for the expropriation was to levee. According to the record, Del- Mar is owned by the protection family. primarily by the Elson Delaune, President of Del- Mar, testified that the family had western portion of the property as cattle land since the 1950s. In 1990, Russeli Savoie began leasing property from Del- Mar for his cattle operation. DelMar leased approximately 1, 100 acres of property to Mr. Savoie. Initially included in Mr. Savoie's lease from Dei- Mar was acreage on the northern end of Del- Mar's property. However, sometime in 2002, Mr. Savoie learned of the expropriation proceedings and NLCLDD's plans to build the levee. Mr. Savoie knew that with the building of the levee, the access road to the northern section of the property would become impassable and he would no longer be able to tend to his cattle in that area. Thus, he began moving his cattle to the south side of his lease. At the time the petition was filed, NLCL4D deposited $ 41, 100. 00 into the registry of the court for the value of the land. On May 7, 2001, Del- Mar filed a motion to withdraw funds, noting that although it did not cdntest the propriety of the expropriation, it did contest the adequacy of the funds deposiked. An order was signed on May 8, 2001, by the trial court directing the Lafourche Parish Clerk of Court to issue a check to Del- Mar for the full amount deposited, i. e., $ 41, 100. 00, pius accrued and accumulated interest. Del- Mar was issued a check in the amount of $41, 336. 95 on May 9, 2001. Thereafter, the record indicates that discovery was pursued and a trial date was set. Settlement negotiations took place, but the parties disagreed as to whether a binding 2 was settlement ultimately reached. NLCLDD filed a '° Rule To Enforce Settlement" on December 28, 2006, which the trial c urt granted by judgment dated April 27, 2007. In a judgment rendered on March 26, 20 r this ce ur r a vrsed the trial court's ruling, finding that the purported settlement was raot er farc abie. lYie riatter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Board of oir rr issooners of the North Lafourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District v. Del- Mar Farms, Inc., 2007- 1587 La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 26/ 08) ( unpublished). Upon remand to the trial court, Del- Mar requested an increase in the value of the land, an amount that the parties stipulated to be $ 3, 200. 00. Del- Mar also requested compensation for loss of the spoil bank, lost rental from the northern acreage, and the cost of a replacement access road to the north. Additionally, Del- Mar asked for attorney fees, judicial interest, expert witness fees, and court costs. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on March 19- 22, 2013, following which the trial court took the matter under advisement. On May 1, 2013, the trial court gave oral reasons for judgment in favor of Del- Mar, concluding that Del- Mar was entitled to $ 567, 147. 00 in damages, itemized as follows Increase in the Lost value of the land faken: 3, 200. 00 51, 675. 00 rentals Replacement costs of the expropriated road: Embankment 431, 272. 00 Crossover/ Turnarounds 10, 000. 00 Culverts 10, 000. 00 Culvert Gates 3, 000. 00 Pipeline 3, 000. 00 Crossing Road Maintenance 20, 000. 00 Permits 5, 000. 00 Engineering & Surveying 30, 000. 00 The trial court also awarded Del- Mar court costs, $ 100, 000. 00 in attorney fees, and legal interest. The trial court signed a judgment on May 15, 2013, in accordance with its findings. It is from this judgment that NLCLDD has appealed, assigning the following specifications of error for our review: L The Court erred in awarding the 2013 value of a replacement road together with legal interest from dat 3 of judicial demand ( 2001) and should have used the value of a rF Bac:ement aad at the time of the Such an avrard is cQ trary to law and places the taking in 2001. landowner in an exceedingly better p s ie than in the absence of the expropriatior at the expense f trYoe raxp y, " The Gourt miscalculat ed the a replacement road based upon sEniipl: - 2. s sE c of dirt to construct the r4, i hF, natical calculations. Said error constituted manifest error_ The headland road was no mdispensible since the testimony of the 3. tenant was that he abandoned use of the northern half of the property prior to any construction work to the lev e or embankment as a result of constant, longstanding drainage problems. Because the road was not indispensible, Del- Mar was not entitled to replacement value of the headland road. The award of rental damages was improper since the tenant 4. abandoned the property for reasons unrelaied to the expropriation. Further the State' s ownership claim to almost one- half of the abandoned northern section further mitigates and red ces the value of the north end. Should the Court reduce the award f severance damages, then attorneys fees should be reduced so as not to exceed the statutorily 5. authorized amount. The award af engiraeering costs in the amount of 30, 000 for a dirt road should be considerecl. equally excessive should the court reduce the district court's auvard or the cost of the replacement road. STANDARD OF REVIEW In an expropriation proceeding, a trial judy' s faetual determinations as to value of property and entitlement to any other types of damages wili not be disturbed on review in the absence of manifest West Jefferson Levee Dist. v. Coast error. Quality Const. Corp., 93- 1718, p. 23 ( La. 5/ 23/ 94), 640 So. 2d 1258, 1277, cert. denied sub nom, 513 U. S. I083, 115 S. Ct. 736, 130 L. Ed. 2d 639 ( 1995). Likewise, where the testimony of the experts and witnesses es contradictory and where the judge decides to give more or less weight t cannot Dept. be overturned of Highways unless v. manifest khe testimony oP certain individuals, his findings error appears in the record. State Through McPherson, 261 L. a. 1]. 6, 259 So. 2d 33, 39 ( La. 1972). Those factual findings the trial judge has made that do not directly involve the valuation of the property or the credibility of the appraisei-s are Iso entitled to deference. West efferson Levee Dist., 93- 1718 at 23, 640 So. 2d at 1277. In Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So. 2d 1330, 1333 ( La. 1978), the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth a two- part test for the appellate 4 review of facts: ( 1) the appellate court must find from the record that there is a reasonable factual basis for the finding of the trial court, and ( 2) the appellate aurt must further determine that the record establishes the fnding is not clearly wron or manifestly erroneous. Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasor7able eva?ua ions of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon PView ° ven though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and 549 So. 2d 840, 844 ( La. 1989). inferences are as reasonable. Rosell v. ESCO, Under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard, the reviewing court does not decide whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the fact finder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. And Development, 617 So. 2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993). AWARD FOR REPLACEMENT ROAD Assignment of Errors Nos. 1, 2, and 3) NLCLDD argues on appeal that the access road that was taken as part of the expropriation was not indispensable. As support for this position, NLCLDD points to Mr. Savoie' s testimony that he had abandoned use of the northern section of the properly prior to any construction work on the levee as a result of constant, fongstanding drainage problems. NLCLDD also asserts that the trial court's use of $20/ cubic yard of dirt ( which was four-times the value of dirt at the time of 'the exprnpriation) in calculating the vaiue of the replacement road was in contravention to the plaii and unambiguous language of Moreover, NLCLDD attempts to argue that judicial interest from the La. R. S. 38: 387( B). date of judgment on the damages awarded would ofFset the inflatfonary costs associated with the delays of getting the matter to triaL Fanally, NLCLDD alleges error in the 431, 272. 00 award for the embankment, ur ing thdt a. simple miscalculation in math resulted in said error. In response, Del- Mar argues there is no manifest error in the trial court's finding that the access road was indispensable and cites State, Dept. of Transp. And Development v. Dietrich, 555 So. 2d 1355, 1359 ( La. 1990), in support of its position that the trial court properly awarded costs of replacing the road that " reflect the economic effect of protracted judicial proceedings." Furthermore, while acknowiedging that the trial s court's full calculations are not available in i oral reasons for judgment, Dei=Mar maintains that the $ 431, 272. 00 award is reason biy ss pported by the evidence in the record and is not manifestly erroneous. Louisiana Revised Statutes 38: 387 pr yi r:>, vh : Mert.inent part, as f l{ows: A. The measure of compensatior: ro th praperty ex iropriated is determined as of the time the estimate i corr pensation was deposited into the registry of the court without considering any change in value caused by the proposed improvement for which the property is expropriated. B. The measure of damages, if any, to the defendant' s remaining property is determined on a basis of immediately before and immediately atter the expropriation taking into consideration the effects of the completion of the project in the manner proposed or planned. C. The owner shall be compensated to the full e ent of his loss. D. The levee district or levee and drainage district shall present its evidence of value first. [ Emphasis added,] After hearing four days of testimony and considering various documents introduced into evidence by the parties, the trial court concluded that Del- Mar was entitled to a replacement road and that a road of 6, 200 feet would be of sufficient length to provide access to the northern section of the property, which was the goaf of the replacement road. In very detailed oral reasons for judgment, the trial court made the following findings: So, this case is not a complicated case. This is a case about NLCLDD] expropriating a servitude for the construction of a levee in the south Lafourche area. The law is very clear that applies to it. This taking occurred in ] anuary 2001. The levee construction took place, according to the testimony, sometimes after that, Z002 or 2003 for the engineered levee, and then the rest of it, the un- engineered portion was built a couple of years later. Del- Mar] in this case - well, iet rr e back up. [ Del- Mar] owns this property, has other property in the area. This properry is not used for farming, sugar cane farming or any other type of crop from the evidence that was presented. It was mainly used by [ Del- Mar], leased to a cattle farmer by the name of Russell Savoie, who had cattle all over the property for over 20 years when the expropriatior was done, Del- Mar] claims as damage the value of the spoil bank that served the farm road, traversing the property in a north/ south fashion. [ DelMar] also claims that [ NLCLDD] must pay to construct a neva road to allow as their tenant, Mr, Savoie, to access the northem section of the properly. NLCLDD' s] response is that adequate cornpensation has already been paid, but if a road is due, nothing should be paid for the spoil bank and the road should be a farm road, one fQOt above grade, just adequate 6 for enough a cattieman tc ive Fris rur.F: ::. h ii rthern area tc service his herd. The amount of $4i, 100 wa: de c sa G 1. Del- Mar] also claims attorney's fees of 25 percent of the difference between the amount de osited ari ar y ,j+ c g nen't of the court if th t is greater than the amoun deposit d, ; : Del- Mar] also asl ed for c e rt casts ar?, legal interest. Each side in the case presented ex rt testimony on the value of nstructing a road to allow and the. cos± of ,; bank, access to the northern p rt of Ehe propecty.`., the land, the spoil The law on these matters as stated in the cases has developed over a period of time since the new canstitution in 1974, and what the law says and what the cases say is that ivhat our Supreme Court has confirmed is that the owner in an expropriation case should be compensated to the full e ent of his loss. And we know that there are cases that say that if that requires replacement of something that is destroyed by the taking, the owner shouid b put in as good a position pecuniarily as he would have been if there dad b en no taking. The law that applies, Title 38, 5ection 387, also referenced to Title 48, Section 453, basically saying the same thing, that the measure of damages is determined on the bdsis of immediately before and immediately after the taking, taking into consideration the effects of the completion of the project in the manner proposed or planned. During the trial the parties stipulated that the value of the land is 44,300. I think that was - we had 4i, 1 1QL uvhec h was deposited and then there was a number of forty-seven- someth'snC but the difference, as I recall, we split, and some medee had s me question about that ar I think Mr. but si w asr"ti ar average, We split the Which brings the value to 4, 3C Q, $ 3, 2Q0 uver 'the amo nt difference of opinien difference. deposited. Del- Mar] complains and asks in 'this ase ha" it be compensated t for the loss af the road, the land area, , o spoi! bank that was consumed in the construction. NLCLDD] contends that th r. w raa e Is not necessary because the tenant, Mr. Savoie, moved cattle off the. nor hern portion of [ Del- Mar' s] property actually before the levee constrq ctian, And he did so, according to [ NLCLDD's argument, riot bec, use of 4he cQnstruction of the levee but because of drainage problems. Mr. Savoie testified in the case thak he now has cattle in the southern portion of the property and [ NLCLDD] contends that he does not need any other access to that area since there is adequate highland that exists to accommodate his farming needs. Mr. Savoie testified in the case, and [ Del- Mar] contends that he moved his cattle off the north piece and demanded a reduction in rent because of the levee construction and not he says that he used the road for v r 20 cause of the drainage. years a service And his herd anci that's why he moved his herd not b caas of drair age bu't because of the construction of the levee, because' the oa l tt at he had been using was destroyed. The court replacement tPee te:* ir the roab indisper sable to [ Del- Mary 7. 4aRci g is a pr pe form of rth is neressar{ and taa ' s t? the max.m Er ecoroomic i at. Ie: a a auoiE and fir ds that the f r uny : ie tr ry d G° in this ease " he a°: c of compensation accept benefit frorn this prope ty, w` e F+.. ac F. s y' c t? the testimony and the evidence, reaHy has no other viable Construction of a new road eef-, ra; wou u; e, ai1 w the tenant to reintroduce cattle onto the northern portion, 'c9 reby providing [ Del- Mar] with an increase in rental income, restoring [ De1- N ar] to the previous pecuniary position that it held before 2001. This form of compensation is recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court as proper and the line of cases that begin with the 1979 decision in the Constant case, Department of Highwavs v Constant. ... I have examined and studied the test'immny antl reports presented by the engineer experts, Mr. Milford and Mr. Chauvin. The goal in this case, - with a replacement, which is my judgment, that there should be a replacement - the goal is to provide a road that wili be efficient for cattle farming on the northem part of tne p Qp rty,and also provide easy access 1: property from La. Hv. improve upon the pre- existing road. to the entire The goal is not to replicate or Actu fly, the pre- existing road, as counsel are well aware, was kirid of a de facto road, that is, it was not engineered, It wasn't buift b ¢r contractor h u ing in dirt. It was formed Forty Arpent C f ia downer said you can dig the canal but I want the spoil and I want you o rut it where I tell you to by the digging of the nal. put it. And after years of settling and cor paetion, it basically became the north/ south access road for Del Mar and fo Uel Mar'sguests and tenants. My finding in this case is tnat Mlr. Chauvin' s approach to road construction, for this case, is more utilitarian than Mr. Milford' s, that Mr. Chauvin' s approach is more aimed at reaching the goaL The goal is to provide access. The goal is not te dupli the rr ad or to improve upon it. The goal is to provide access. Mr. Milford' s report and his estimat s are professional. They' re not faulty. They're not deficient. I just found Mr. Milford' s plan to be too much, that it contains too many featur.e5 anci amounts that [ De1- Mar], I think, in this case is just not legally entitled to. I have used Mr. Chauvin` s numbers ,.. and I have tweaked those numbers somewhat. And I will awar daznage for a replacement road as follows: the road would be a 16 font bose: with a 12 foot crown, three feet high, and would extend 6, 200 feet frgr? tE e LA 1 access road to the crossover at Nolan Toups, which is b ut. midway up the engineered levee. I find that that road would be an adequate replacement for anyone farming cattle in any part of that properCy. It vuould allow access ... and basically allow someone to go up all the way int the northern part of the property where they would have access to that part. 8 The details are lr basically '.. h uvin`s changes. I have priced the soil at $ 2U Milford had different he that he says numbers he said came d an c! bie yarq. Mr. Chauvin and Mr. ir. Ghau f iev: r numbers. solicit another from calls numbers with a few r:is at c ject Gs ¢ thafi F e , r ad. ie bas2d on bids that in 2012. Mr. Milford' s So, I corripromised at 20 a cubic yard thinking that the n mbers ti at Mr. Chauvin was able to get and bids on a public project might r; k be an accurate reflection of what a private landowner migf t qet ?ra es onse to soliciting bids from contractors. So, 16 foot base with a 12 foot crown, three feet high, 6, 200 feet. So, for the embankment the number is $ 431, 272. I've allowed $ 10, 000 for either a crossover or turnaround on the northern part of the property, whatever the landowner thinks wrould be appropriate. Ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000) for culyerts. Three thousand dollars ($ 3, 000j Thirty for gates. thousand dollars ($ 30,000) Three thousand doliars ($ 3, 0 f r engineering and survey. 0) for a pipeiine crossing. Twenty thou5and dollars ($ 20,OOOa for construction maintenance. And $ 5, 000 for permit fees. The total $ 512, 272 Considering the applicable law and jurisprudence as it relates to the record before us, we find no error in the determination ry the trial eourt that Del- Mar suffered compensable damages. There was sufficient evidenca to prove that Del- Mar was entitled to a replacement road that would allow for the continued leasing of the land on the northern section of the property fnr its intE deci purpose, i,e., cattle farming. Moreover, we find no rror in the tria( court'$ $43:, As stated by our supreme court in Dietrich . Proof of economic loss may be" determine may exceed the market v 272. 00 award for the embankment. h y various methods, and it lue ' of' the property. However, the method employed for proof of loss must demon trate by a preponderance of the evidence that an actual loss was sustalned, by the business because of the taking. In addition, the award may reflect. the economic effect of protracted judicial proceedings. Dietrich, 555 So. 2d at 1359. The embankmenf a Nard is more than reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety. Furthermore, there is ample testimony in ti 9 0 record from the two experts concerning the y f ctors and calculations that go into rr building a road of this type. The trial court iac the benefit of this xpert testimony in Del- Mar $ 431, 272. 00 awarding err i ankr+F;; t c^ sts, an arriount the triai court i determined to be a fair price for th repiacer e 4 r a! d tc he bui!t.l We flnc+7o merit to NLCLDD' s arguments to the contiaryLOST REI T/iLS Assignment of Error No. 4) NLCLDD argues in this assignment Of Zff7P that the trial court' s $ 51, 675. OQ award for damagesz was rental improper becaus el,-Mar continued to receive renta! revenues following the expropriation and th2 discuntinuation of rental payments from Mr. Savoie was because of drainage issues unreVated to the expropriation of the property. NLCLDD also alleges that the State's ovvnership claim to almost one- half of the abandoned northern section of Del- Mar's property further mitigates and reduces the value of the north end and that thetrial court's award for lost rentals should be reduced by the percentage of land owned by the State, Del- Mar contends that the trial c urt's var f r ost renta! was proper and had nothing to do with NLCLDD's never pfed and u ownership of a portion of the northern roven defense of the State ciaiming acreage uf Def- Mar' s properly. Furthermore; Del- Mar maintains that this aiieged ownership by the State had rio effect on Mr Savoie' s lease as he had every intentio property as soon as his access to the of returninq to the northern portion of the properi} oestored. We agree with Del- Mar on this issue. As previously noted, Mr, Savoie was ' clear an his testimony that he abandoned the northern section of Del- Mar's property because he was no longer able to cend to his As pointed out by Del- Mar in brief to this co rt, in oost frfal memoranda, Del- Mar requested 806, 400.00 in embankment costs, while NLCLDD requesr:ed i?. 402.00. The amount awarded by the 8, trial court is very close to an average of these tvao numbers, 462, 401. 00. 2 We note that in its oral reasons for judgn ent, the trial co:' s awerd for lost rentals was $ 51, 655. 00 a5 opposed to $ 51, 675. 00 as it appears in khe wrikten judgmerir. When a trial court's oral rzasons conflict with its written, signed judgment, the latter govems. Northshore Capital Ent rprises v. St. Tammany Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 2001- 1606, p. 4 n. 3 ( La: App. 1 Cir: 6/ 1lQ2?, 822 SoZd 109, 1 2 n3, writ denied, 2002- 2023 ( La. 11/ 1/ 02), 828 So.2d 584. 1C cattie after NLCLDU exprop+ tPd ih of the propertya the evider+ ce o the pro er. o y a! Y; r in the recorC that t' ie Mr. Savoie' s decisiora to leave th record is rentals that is suffered replete with evidence j v< curia:: g access of .: road was built- irr by tne State had ` ere is no r y E fect on s c tR, are , 9r usi-, a' s rop,erty. Moreover, the y' t i g khe repiac ment road buift so 44y: ; th e $ 51, 675. 00 to Del- Mar for lost aWv r n support as a result of I vays xpee iry to go back to ar..' ar .;> ic ! r7art9. to x af;. ued'.him access to that portion Lac dly Mr: SavoiF also cest± + ection northern c that Mr. Savoie could return to the norkherr sec'[ion of the property and resume his lease of said properly. We find no merit to thls assignment of error. ATTORNEY FEES Assignment of Error No. 5) The trial court awarded Del- Mar atto n y ees iri. the mounk af $100, 000. 00 ar d 30, 000. 00 in engineering costs e e r. ilae far t t rn i- Qad. ` On ppeaE NLC D aryues that in the event this court should deterrrilnF a e? ct on of he award s in arder, ther the award of attorney fees shoufd be reduced acc aing to law. NLCLDD further asserts that the award for engineering cost vuaa exc ss vE' ric si o; id be ceduce by t!-is co rk to the $ 5, 000. 00 estimate testified to by atS ex; e respo se, pel ¢ Mar main Ains Yhat the record supports both awards. It is well settled that attorne fees a nut li wed except wh re authoriz d by statute or contract. State, Depft of Transp ard 2+ 1. 0050, p. 2 ( La. 5/ 28/ 10), 38 So, 3d 2, w e relopment va li4 agner, 2010isiana Revis d Statutes 38.: 8i(E) provides, as follows: E. Reasonable attorney' Yees. rnay tae warded by th caurt if tnE amount of the compensation deposit: d ; r:. Eegistry of the co rt is le.ss thu than the amount of comp rsaticar attorney'$ fees in no event sh Vi ae a aec exi.; e ir .the j dgme it. SUCh t.vv: nty- tive percent of the difference between the avvard aod the am urtt c eposiYed ir the registry of the court. Attorney fees in e. cpropriation cases re disc eti ry vith the tria{ court. Courts may inquire as to ti e reasonableness of atta rey fees as part of their prevailing, ir herelk authority to regulate determining the the practice reasonableness of of ia v. a kurs co be kaken is to considerakian in attorney fees incfuu e: 11 . . ( 1) the ultimate result obtained; ( 2) the responsibiPity incurred; ( 3) " th amount of money invo ved; (. 5) the e legal knowledge, made; ( 8) the inkricac 10) the s Y of the facts 'arr+ a Staf, knowledge. court' s owri nr and c a ras:ter of tne woric performed; ( 6) the skill of attainment an imporEance of the litigation; ( 4) the e ,^ ey,; ( r, 7) tne number of appearances d:; i,`^7 °:` nr ii' iyen e ar ti skill nf counsei; and D ptk of 7'ransp. and Development v. Williamson, 597 So. 2d 439, 441- 442 ( La. 1992, In oral reasons for judgment, th trial ; ourt n ted as follows with respect to attorney fees: On the issue of attorney's fees th court will award $ 100, 000. This does not exceed 25 percent of the difference b Eween the damage award and the deposited I have taken intc consideration all of the amount. w presented to me in the memorandum in arriving at this humber, It is not the maximum amount factors that were set in out the case but it is over 75 percent ofthe maximum amount. I believe the award is just and reasonable wnsidering the type` of case, the amount of money awarded and the number of court appearances over the years in this case. The law does not mandate the award xo be 25 percent of the difference. The law mandates that the award be reasonabie. Based on our review of the nsi i ring our finding that the krial record. and, court's judgment on damages was appropriate, we f;rid no abuse of discretion in tne trial court's award of attorney fees in tnis ca e a d ill r ot disturb the trial court`s avvard of $ 100, 000. 00. Likewise, with regard t replacement road, we the tri l eour' s award of engineering costs for the decline to red Ce e,he rr o: i at' s award of 30, OOO. t30. Our review of the record reveals that this a tia d ds w adso: a ly supported by tne evldenee and is not manifestly erroneous. CONGLUSTOIV.... For the above and foregoing reasorts,. wE.. 1 rm the ,May 15, 2013 judgmenk of the trial court. Appeai costs in the amount. of $, 64, 50 are assessed against plaintiff- appellant, the Board of Commission rs. of the No th Latourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District. AFFIRMED. 12 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 CA 1604 THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS NORTH LAFOURCHE CONSERVATION, LEVEE AND DRAENAGE DESTRICT VERSUS DEL- MAR FARMS, IN.C. McCLENDpN, J., concurs and assigns reasons; Under the provisions of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, the measure of damages in expropriation cases was broadened so that an owner of property that is expropriated by the state " shali be compensated to the full e ent of his loss." 4. The change allowed an owner to be put in as good LSA- Const. Art. 1, § a position pecuniarily as he would have been had his properly not been taken. See State Through Dept. of Highways v. Constant, 369 So. 2d 699, 701 ( La. Nonetheless, Article 1, 1979). compensate a landowner whose Section 4 does not specify how to fully property is taken. State, Dept. Of Transp. and Dev. v. Dietrich, 555 So. 2d 1355, 1358 ( La. 1990). Considering the unique and indispensable value of the road to Del- Mar Farms' business operations in this matter, I agree that the replacement cost for the expropriated road is appropriate. However, the supreme court has not directly answered the question of whether the cost of replacement is valued at the time of the taking, or at a later date. See Consta t, 369 So. 2d 699, and Dietrich, 555 So. 2d 1355. Nevertheless, considering the constitutional requirement that property owners be fully compensated and made whole when their property is expropriated, I concur in the result reached by the majority.

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.