4 C's Land Corp. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.

• Decision Date: 21 October 2021
• Docket Number: 2021 CA 0121,2020 CW 1105
• Citation: 332 So.3d 123
• Parties: 4 C'S LAND CORPORATION, Jimmy Cantrelle Land Company, LLC, James Cantrelle and Leona Cantrelle v. COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION COMPANY and Industrial Helicopters, LLC
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

332 So.3d 123

4 C'S LAND CORPORATION, Jimmy Cantrelle Land Company, LLC, James Cantrelle and Leona Cantrelle

v.COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION COMPANY and Industrial Helicopters, LLC

2021 CA 0121

2020 CW 1105

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: OCTOBER 21, 2021

P. Albert Bienvenu, Metairie, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants, 4 C's Land Corporation, Jimmy Cantrelle Land Company, L.L.C., James Cantrelle, and Leona Cantrelle

Marshall A. Hevron, Roland M. Vandenweghe, Taylor E. Brett, New Orleans, Louisiana and Christopher H. Riviere, Thibodaux, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WOLFE, J.

This is an appeal, and related application for supervisory writ, of a partial summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant holder of pipeline servitudes, which declared that the plaintiffs will not be able to recover for any damages to trees and vegetation within and extending into the area of the servitudes. We dismiss the appeal and deny the writ application.

FACTS

The plaintiffs to this suit are 4 C's Land Corporation and Jimmy Cantrelle Land Company, L.L.C., which own non-contiguous tracts of property in Lafourche Parish, as well as James and Leona Cantrelle, who are the officers, directors, and members of the two companies and enjoy use of the properties. The properties are burdened with contractual pipeline servitudes now held by Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, LLC ("Columbia"). The plaintiffs filed this suit against Columbia and others, seeking damages and other relief arising from the July 24, 2012 aerial application of chemical herbicide to the properties, both inside and outside the servitude boundaries, allegedly at Columbia's direction.¹ The plaintiffs averred that the servitude agreements did not authorize Columbia to spray or otherwise apply chemicals to the properties; therefore, Columbia's actions constituted a trespass and breach of the servitude agreements. The damages they seek include compensation for injuring and killing trees and vegetation both inside and outside the servitude boundaries.

Columbia moved for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for damages to trees and vegetation inside the servitude boundaries. Columbia contended that as the holder of the servitudes it has the contractual right to use the servitudes for their intended purpose. Columbia contended this included the right to maintain the servitude areas for use, which necessarily included the right to clear trees and vegetation within the servitude boundaries. Columbia argued that the servitude agreements’ silence as to how it could maintain the servitudes should not be construed to prohibit the use of reasonable modem methods, including the application of herbicides. Columbia further argued that its supporting evidence established that it acted reasonably in deciding to apply the herbicide and in implementing its decision. Thus, Columbia argued the trial court should grant summary judgment in its favor, ruling that the plaintiffs cannot recover for any damages to trees and vegetation within the servitude boundaries.

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs argued that the servitude agreements require compensation to the landowners for the damages that result from the servitude holder's use, repair, or maintenance of the pipeline. The plaintiffs contended that the rights granted by the servitudes cannot be construed to grant Columbia the unfettered use of the areas and to authorize the aerial spray of poisonous herbicide, which the plaintiffs maintain was unreasonable, unnecessary, and applied without their consent.

After a hearing, the trial court agreed with Columbia that its right under the servitude agreements included the right to clear tree growth. Further, the trial court found that the servitude agreements could not be interpreted to afford the plaintiffs damages for trees killed within or extending into the servitude boundaries. The trial court signed a judgment that granted Columbia's motion for partial summary judgment for the reasons set forth in Columbia's briefs, discussed by Columbia's counsel during oral argument, and stated by the court in its oral reasons. The judgment was further designated as final for purposes of an immediate appeal.

The plaintiffs filed both an application for supervisory writ and an appeal, seeking review of the judgment. The writ application was referred to this panel for resolution. See 4C's Land Corporation v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. , 2020-1105 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/21/20) (unpublished writ action).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties, and to grant the relief to which they are entitled. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1. Appellate courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte , even if the litigants do not raise the issue. Advanced Leveling & Concrete Solutions v. Lathan Co., Inc. , 2017-1250 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/20/18), 268 So.3d 1044, 1046 (en banc ).

This court's appellate jurisdiction extends only to final judgments, which determine the merits in whole or in part, and to interlocutory judgments made expressly appealable by law. See La. Code Civ. P. arts. 1841 and 2083 ; Hoffmann v. Scurria , 2019-1047 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/21/20), 299 So.3d 723, 727. A judgment that only partially determines the merits of an action will constitute a partial final judgment that is immediately appealable only if authorized by La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915. Matter of Succ. of Pellette , 2018-0728 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/16/19), 2019 WL 1614718, *5 (unpublished). Thus, a partial summary judgment dispositive of a particular issue or theory of recovery may be immediately appealed during ongoing litigation only if it has been properly designated as final by the trial court pursuant to Article 1915B. See La. Code Civ. P. arts. 966E, 1915A(3) and B; Stanley v. Potts , 2020-1315 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/4/21), 2021 WL 2283916, *2 (unpublished). Although the trial court herein designated the partial summary judgment sub judice as final, that designation alone is not determinative of this court's jurisdiction. Rather, jurisdiction hinges on whether the designation was proper. See Carr v. Sanderson Farms, Inc. , 2017-1499 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/6/18), 2018 WL 1663148, *2 (unpublished); Templet v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety and Corrections , 2005-1903 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/3/06), 951 So.2d 182, 185.

When the trial court provides explicit reasons for designating a judgment as final, the appellate court reviews the propriety of the designation under the abuse of discretion standard. R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum , 2004-1664 (La. 3/2/05), 894 So.2d 1113, 1122. Historically, our courts have had a policy against multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation. Article 1915 attempts to strike a balance between the undesirability of piecemeal appeals and the need for the availability of review to best serve the needs of the parties. Messinger , 894 So.2d at 1122. In conducting our review of the trial court's designation, we consider the "overriding inquiry" of "whether there is no just reason for delay," as well as the other nonexclusive criteria ...