Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres
| Citation | 304 So.3d 529 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | CA 19-565 |
| Parties | BAYOU BRIDGE PIPELINE, LLC v. 38.00 ACRES, More or Less, Located in St. Martin Parish, et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
William Patrick Quigley, Loyola University College of Law, 7214 St. Charles Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118, (504) 710-3074, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Peter Aaslestad, Theda Larson Wright, Katherine Aaslestad
Pamela C. Spees, Astha Sharma Pokharel, Center for Constitutional Rights, 666 Broadway, 7th Flr, New York, NY 10012, (212) 614-6431, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Peter Aaslestad, Katherine Aaslestad, Theda Larson Wright
Misha L. Mitchell, 411 Walnut Street #15255, Green Cove Springs, FL 32043, (225) 692-1133 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Peter Aaslestad, Theda Larson Wright, Katherine Aaslestad
Michael Beatty Donald, Jones Walker, LLP, 811 Main Street, Ste. 2900, Houston, TX 77002, (713) 437-1824 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC
Ian Alexander Macdonald, Jones Walker, LLP, 600 Jefferson Street, Suite 1600, Lafayette, LA 70501, (337) 593-7612, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC
Archie Paul Joseph, P. O. Box 1283, Breaux Bridge, LA 70517 (337) 332-5287, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Barry Scott Carline, et al.
Jeff Landry, Attorney General of Louisiana, Harry J. Vorhoff, Ryan M. Seidemann, Assistant Attorney General, P. O. Box 94005, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005, (225) 326-6085 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy Howard Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, D. Kent Savoie, and Jonathan W. Perry, Judges.
Katherine Aaslestad, Peter Aaslestad, and Theda Larson Wright (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants") appeal the decision of the trial court denying their exception of prematurity, granting expropriation in favor of Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC1 (hereinafter "BBP"), and denying their reconventional demand in which they sought damages for violations of their due process rights. For the following reasons, we hereby affirm the decision of the trial court, in part, reverse, in part, and remand to the trial court for determination of costs.
This matter centers on the construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline, a 162.5-mile crude oil pipeline running from the Clifton Ridge terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana to a marketing hub in St. James, Louisiana; this is an extension of the pipeline Energy Transfer had previously built from Nederland, Texas to Lake Charles. After obtaining several federal and state environmental permits and certifications,2 BBP began to acquire servitudes3 needed to build the pipeline, including the roughly thirty-eight acres that is the subject of this current litigation. BBP identified approximately 470 heirs to the title of the parcel, including Defendants. Nevertheless, prior to reaching servitude agreements with all individuals BBP recognized as having an ownership interest, BBP authorized construction to begin in early 2018. During the summer of 2018, BBP entered Defendants’ property, cleared trees, dug trenches, and began construction of the pipeline even though it lacked legal authority to do so. Thus, on July 27, 2018, prior to BBP's initiation of expropriation litigation, Peter Aaslestad, one of the Defendants, brought suit to enjoin BBP from illegally continuing its construction on the not-yet expropriated property. As a result of this injunction proceeding, BBP entered into a stipulated agreement in September 2018, to remain off the property as of September 10, 2018; however, by then pipeline construction was more than ninety percent complete.
On July 27, 2018, just after Peter Aaslestad filed his suit for injunctive relief, BBP initiated the expropriation litigation against those property owners with whom agreements could not be reached, such as Defendants, or who could not be located;4 BBP's petition for expropriation identifies 393 individuals made defendant.5 Defendants’ answer to the expropriation included an affirmative defense alleging the Louisiana expropriation system was unconstitutional as it applied to oil pipelines, such as BBP. Further included in their answer were exceptions of prematurity, alleging BBP failed to properly provide two of Defendants with information required by La.R.S. 19:2.2. Defendants further filed a reconventional demand seeking damages for trespass, alleging BBP had illegally entered their property, as well as damages for BBP's violations of due process prior to obtaining a judgment of expropriation.
The trial court dismissed the exceptions, finding sufficient service and a lack of prejudice to Defendants. In a hearing prior to trial of the expropriation action, the trial court further held that the eminent domain scheme established by the Louisiana Constitution adequately protected the due process and property rights of Louisiana landowners under both the State and Federal Constitutions. After a trial on the merits, the trial court ruled that the expropriation of land for a servitude to lay the pipeline served a public and necessary purpose and granted expropriation. Finally, the trial court found that, although BBP was entitled to a servitude to lay the pipeline, it had entered onto and disturbed Defendants’ property prior to the time it had acquired the right to do so. As compensation for BBP's expropriation of this servitude to lay the pipeline, the trial court awarded each of the Defendants $75.00. The trial court also determined that for BBP's trespass of approximately five months, each of the Defendants was entitled to an additional $75.00 for trespass damages. The trial court's judgment contains no separate award for BBP's violation of Defendants’ due process rights when BBP conducted months-long construction on the property prior to obtaining an order of expropriation.
On appeal, Defendants assert four assignments of error. They claim that the trial court erred in: (1) denying their affirmative defenses, asserting that Louisiana's granting of eminent domain to private oil pipeline companies violates U.S. and Louisiana Constitutions’ due process and property rights protections;6 (2) failing to render judgment on certain aspects of their reconventional demands alleging violations of their property and due process rights, despite the trial court finding BBP trespassed on their property; (3) denying their dilatory exceptions of prematurity, where BBP allegedly failed to comply with statutory prerequisites for expropriation; and (4) allowing impermissible evidence of economic development and incidental benefit to the public in determining whether the expropriation served a public and necessary purpose.
From the outset, we note that an issue has arisen about whether this court should address the trial court's trespass damage award even though the Defendants failed to raise that issue as an assignment of error. For that reason, we will first address the need for appellate assignments of error in civil litigation and exceptions thereto.
Assignments of Error; an overview
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2129 states:
An assignment of errors is not necessary in any appeal. Where the appellant designates only portions of the record as the record on appeal, he must serve with his designation a concise statement of the points on which he intends to rely, and the appeal shall be limited to those points.
Elaborating on La.Code Civ.P. art. 2129, the Official Revision Comment states:
The jurisprudence has construed Arts. 896 and 897, Code of Practice of 1870, to the effect that where the transcript is certified as containing all the testimony and the grounds for reversal are apparent from the face of the record, no assignment of errors is necessary. Bossier v. Caradine, 18 La.Ann. 261 (1866) ; In re Fazende, 35 La.Ann. 1145 (1883) ; Havana American Co. v. Board of Assessors, 105 La. 471, 29 So. 938 (1901).
In Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 93-852 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/22/94), 639 So.2d 773, 792,writ granted and remanded , 94-1978, 94-1990 (La. 11/11/94), 644 So.2d 661, Judge Culpepper (dissenting, in part) observed:
Code of Practice of 1970, Art. 896 provided that if the copy of the record brought up from the trial court was not certified by the clerk of the lower court as containing all of the testimony adduced, the supreme court would only judge the case on a statement of facts. Article 897 provided that an appellant who did not rely wholly or in part on a statement of facts, an exception to the judge's opinion, or a special verdict, but on an error of law appearing on the face of the record, would be allowed a period of ten days after the record was brought up to file a statement specifically alleging any errors. The Official Revision Comment under LSA–C.C.P. Art. 2129 indicates the jurisprudence under the old Code of Practice Articles construed them to mean that where the transcript is certified as containing all of the testimony and the grounds for reversal are apparent from the face of the record, no assignment of errors was necessary. This jurisprudence was simply codified in LSA–C.C.P. Art. 2129.
Moreover, La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164 and the Official Revision Comments thereunder state:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Holden
- Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres
-
Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres, More or Less, Located in St. Martin Parish
...v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1128 (La.1987).Page 4 Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres, 19-565, pp. 35-36 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/15/20), 304 So.3d 529, 550-51 (footnote omitted). Ultimately, the court of appeal found that although defendants could not challenge the amount of the trespass awar......