Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc. v. Anny, 110216 FED5, 16-30147
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||CONSOLIDATED GRAIN & BARGE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff v. RANDY ANNY, Defendant AMERICAN RIVER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee v. RANDY ANNY, Defendant-Appellant RANDY ANNY; Individually and as Administration of the Succession of Victoria Ester Martin, Plaintiff - Appellant BARBARA FALGOUST Intervenor-Plaintiff - Appellant v. ALBERT D...|
|Judge Panel:||Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 02, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 2:11-CV-2615, 2:13-CV-5827, 2:11-CV-2204
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. [*]
This appeal arises from a trespass action. The American River Transportation Company ("ARTCO") owned land along the Mississippi River in Convent, Louisiana. ARTCO alleged that the neighboring landowner, Barbara Falgoust, along with her husband, Randy Anny, trespassed on its property when they built a haul road and a fence on ARTCO's side of the property line. Anny and Falgoust responded that they owned the land through acquisitive prescription (the Louisiana analogue of adverse possession). After a nine-day bench trial, the district court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding that ARTCO rightfully owned the property, that Anny and Falgoust did not acquire it by acquisitive prescription, and that Anny and Falgoust owed damages for their trespass.
Anny and Falgoust, now pro se (though they were represented by counsel during the district court proceedings), appeal the district court's judgment, arguing primarily that the district court erred in finding that they did not own the disputed land by acquisitive prescription. They explicitly state that they are not challenging the district court's factual determinations-only its legal conclusions. Their arguments, however, do little more than question the district court's factual findings without providing a legal basis for calling them into doubt.
We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Anny and Falgoust did not own the land.1 The district court...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP