Cambre v. St. John the Baptist Parish

• Decision Date: 16 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–CA–590.,12–CA–590.
• Citation: 119 So.3d 73
• Parties: Philip J. CAMBRE v. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

119 So.3d 73

Philip J. CAMBRE

v.ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH.

No. 12–CA–590.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

May 16, 2013.

Thomas F. Daley, District Attorney, William D. O' Regan, III, Assistant District Attorney, Edgard, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.

Philip J. Cambre, Laplace, LA, for Appellant/In Proper Person.

Salvatore G. Lovecchio, Attorney at Law, Boutte, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Panel composed of Judges MARC E. JOHNSON, ROBERT A. CHAISSON and STEPHEN J. WINDHORST.

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST, Judge.

[5 Cir. 2]Appellants, Philip J. Cambre and Dutch Bayou Development Co., Inc. ¹ (“Dutch Bayou”), appeal from the trial court's judgment awarding them $4,080.00 in damages for breach of contract claims against St. John the Baptist Parish (“the Parish”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Appellants filed this suit against the Parish seeking to enforce the provisions of a contract and for damages for breach of contract. This case involves property located in Reserve, Louisiana that was part of an original land grant to the Cambre family. The property initially ran from the river to the 80 arpent line north of Airline Highway. Over the years, the property was divided into several lots wherein various lots were sold for commercial ² or public ³ use and the remaining lots were sold to Dutch Bayou. The breach of contract claims in this lawsuit involve prior litigation between the parties and disputes involving Lots 2, 3, and 5 and Cambre Road. ⁴[5 Cir. 3]Suit No. 1: 40th Judicial District Court, Case No. 34,448, Nature Land Co., L.L.C. v. Dutch Bayou Development Co., Inc. and Philip Cambre:

On October 30, 1995, Nature Land Co., L.L.C. (“Nature Land”) filed a petition for preliminary and permanent injunction and possessory action against Dutch Bayou and Mr. Cambre, claiming it had possessed Cambre Road for over 30 years and therefore was entitled to judgment granting Nature Land the right of possession. On October 28, 1998, the trial court ordered Nature Land to pay Dutch Bayou compensation in the amount of $7,500.00 for a “personal servitude, right of use” of Cambre Road with the ability to assign and sublet.⁵ However, the judgment precluded Nature Land from receiving any consideration for subletting or assigning use of Cambre Road up to the 80 arpent line. Additionally, Nature Land was required to give Dutch Bayou advance notice of any assignment or sublet. The judgment further provided that the Cambre family, heirs, and assigns, retained the right to negotiate with third parties who used the road “to the northern end of the 80 arpent line for commercial gain (not limited to monetary gain).”

Suit No. 1 is replete with complaints and cross-motions by Nature Land, Dutch Bayou and Mr. Cambre concerning negotiating the use of Cambre Road with third party defendant, Cypress Ridge Hunting Club (“CRHC”), a lessee of Nature Land. This case is still pending in the district court.

Suit No. 2: 40th Judicial District Court, Case No. 52,293, Philip Cambre v. St. John the Baptist Parish:

Thereafter, the Parish executed a 99–year lease commencing on May 15, 2006 to the Louisiana National Guard for the purpose of constructing a building on the road servitude leading from Airline Highway to Cambre Road. Mr. Cambre filed suit against the Parish claiming that the lease as confected blocked his access [5 Cir. 4]to Lots 2, 3 and 5. Mr. Cambre argued that the right of way servitude had belonged to the Cambre family since 1942 and was subsequently owned by Dutch Bayou. On November 22, 2006, Suit No. 2 was settled and resulted in the Parish, Mr. Cambre and Dutch Bayou ⁶ executing a “Full Release.” At the same time, Mr. Cambre and his wife executed a Quitclaim Deed and sold Lots 2 and 3 and Cambre Road to the Parish.

In the Full Release the Parish agreed that it would:

1. Not intervene in any way in [Suit No. 1] (“Item 1”);

2. Allow Dutch Bayou Development Co., Inc., its successors and assigns, and/or officers access to Lot 5 through currently existing points, which may include the levee access point at the end of Airport Road or such other points of access that may become available in the future (“Item 2”); and

3. Allow Philip J. Cambre and others to enter upon the property that is the subject of this suit and sale for the sole purpose of removing all or part of the camps located on this property and for the removal of firewoodfor the personal use of said Philip J. Cambre, through the end of 2006 and if necessary, to be extended, the removal of the camps, using the alternate routes until the 31st day of March, 2007 (“Item 3”).

The present litigation: 40th Judicial District Court, Case No. 54,197, Philip J. Cambre v. St. John the Baptist Parish:

On August 3, 2007, Mr. Cambre and Dutch Bayou filed this suit against the Parish claiming that the Parish breached the three stipulations as set forth in the Full Release executed in Suit No. 2. Mr. Cambre claimed that the Parish breached Item 1 by intervening in Suit No. 1 and allowing CRHC use of Cambre Road. Dutch Bayou claims that Item 2 was breached by the Parish when Dutch Bayou was denied access to Lot 5. Mr. Cambre further claimed that Item 3 was breached by the Parish when he was denied access to remove his camps which resulted in subsequent damages. In a supplemental and amending petition, Dutch Bayou [5 Cir. 5]further claimed that it was entitled to compensation for the “taking” of the bridge that crosses over the drainage canal south of the protection levee near Cambre Road and that allows access to Lot 5 and the camps.

The property involved is located north of Airline Highway and south of the 80 arpent line, specifically Lots 2, 3 and 5 which are north of the drainage canal. Prior to trial, the trial judge, parties and counsel visited the property and observed the access routes and gates that were central to the merits of Mr. Cambre and Dutch Bayou's claims. Trial on the merits was held on August 22, 23, and 24, 2011. Evidence included the court visiting and viewing some of the property.

The trial court rendered judgment on September 19, 2011. The trial court found that the Parish did not intervene in any way in Suit No. 1 and thus, did not violate Item 1 in the Full Release in Suit No. 2. The trial court found that the Parish did not violate Item 2 and that appellants had access to Lot 5 at all times. The trial judge further found that the Parish violated Item 3 and committed a partial breach of Item 3 of the Full Release in Suit No. 2, when the appellants were partially denied access to remove the camps. However, the trial court found that the appellants failed to mitigate their damages and allocated 75% of the fault to appellants. The trial court determined the camps to be valued at $16,320.00. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of appellants and against the Parish in the amount of $4,080.00 in damages for the breach of contract claim which was the value of the camps reduced by 75% for appellants' fault. This appeal followed.

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

A determination of fact is entitled to great deference on review. McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 10–2775 (La.7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1218, 1230. Factual findings of a trier of fact may not be disturbed by an appellate court absent manifest error. Allerton v. Broussard, 10–2071 (La.12/10/10), 50 So.3d 145, 145,[5 Cir. 6]reconsideration denied,10–2071 (La.1/28/11), 56 So.3d 974. To reverse a fact finder's determination of facts, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety and (1) find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding, and (2) further determine that the record establishes the trier of fact is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Id.;S.J. v. Lafayette Parish School Bd., 09–2195 (La.7/6/10), 41 So.3d 1119, 1127. Where a conflict in the testimony exists, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed, even though the reviewing court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are more reasonable. McGlothlin, 65 So.3d at 1231;Allerton, 50 So.3d at 145;Stobart v. State, Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993).

In their first assignment of error, appellants claim that the trial court erred by not finding that the Parish intervened ⁷ in Suit No. 1. Appellants assert that the trial court did not consider evidence that the Parish interfered with Mr. Cambre's attempts to negotiate with third party defendant, CRHC, in Suit No. 1. Secondly, appellants contend that the trial court mistakenly concluded that the Quitclaim Deed and Full Release executed in Suit No. 2 effectively settled Suit No. 1. Finally, appellants claim that the trial court's interpretation of the Full Release in Suit No. 2 rendered Item 1 of that Release meaningless.

Mr. Cambre first contends that the Parish intervened in Suit No. 1 by allowing CRHC use and control of the ingress and egress of Cambre Road. At trial, the Parish acknowledged that permission to use Cambre Road was given to CRHC after the execution of the Quitclaim Deed in favor of the Parish and the Parish became the owner of Lots 2 and 3 and Cambre Road. In its reasons for judgment, the trial court found that Mr. Cambre and his wife failed to reserve any [5 Cir. 7]ownership rights or right of use to Cambre Road in the Quitclaim Deed, except for the limited access granted in the Full Release.

Appellants also contend that the trial court mistakenly confused this case with prior litigation. Appellants claim that in the reasons for judgment the trial court incorrectly stated that the Quitclaim Deed and Full Release were “in effect a settlement” of Suit No. 1 and incorrectly found that Suit No. 1 was “no longer a viable lawsuit subject to intervention.” Appellants argue that the Full Release and Quitclaim Deed settled Suit No. 2, but not Suit No. 1. Moreover, appellants claim that the Parish is not a defendant in Suit No. 1 and that case is still...