Crooks v. State

• Decision Date: 29 January 2020
• Docket Number: 2019-C-0160
• Citation: 340 So.3d 574
• Parties: Steve CROOKS and Era Lee Crooks v. State of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

340 So.3d 574

Steve CROOKS and Era Lee Crooks
v.
State of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

No. 2019-C-0160

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 29, 2020

Hon. Jeffrey Martin Landry, Attorney General, Sean Thomas Porter, Ryan Michael Seidemann, Harry James Vorhoff, Scott David Johnson, and Joseph J. Bailey, for Applicant-Defendant.

Christopher Joseph Piasecki, Virgil Russell Purvis, Jr., and J. Rock Palermo, for Respondent-Plaintiff.

KIRBY, Justice ad hoc^{* ** ***}

We granted certiorari in this class action to determine whether the plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims for compensation against the State of Louisiana have prescribed under La. R.S. 13:5111 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2501. The lower courts relied on the decision in Cooper v. Louisiana Department of Public Works, 03-1074 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 870 So. 2d 315¹ , to conclude the one-year prescriptive period for damage to immovable property found in La. C.C. art. 3493 governed and the continuing tort doctrine applied to prevent the running of prescription on the plaintiffs' claims. For the reasons that follow, we find the lower courts erred in relying on Cooper and now hold that the three-year prescriptive period for actions for compensation for property taken by the state set forth in La. R. S. 13:5111 governs and the plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims are prescribed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1962, the United States began constructing various structures² in and around the Catahoula Basin pursuant to a congressionally-approved navigation project under the River and Harbor Act of

340 So.3d 577

1960 to promote navigation on the Ouachita and Black Rivers. In conjunction with that project, the State of Louisiana signed an "Act of Assurances," which obligated the State to provide the federal government with all lands and property interests necessary to the project free of charge, and to indemnify the federal government from any damages resulting from the project.

The project was completed in 1973 and, at that time, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service began managing the water levels in and around the Catahoula Basin. As intended, these water management activities increased water levels in the Catahoula Basin and prolonged the natural annual high-water fluctuations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continues to manage the water levels in the Catahoula Basin to this day. Also, the State, through the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, has granted mineral leases in the area known as Catahoula Lake.

On May 4, 2006, plaintiffs Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks filed a "Class Action Petition to Fix Boundary, For Damages and For Declaration [sic] Judgment." The Crookses alleged that they represent a class of landowners in the Catahoula Basin whose property is affected by the increased water levels from the project. Ultimately, the trial court certified the plaintiffs as one class, but subdivided that class into two groups – the "Lake Plaintiffs" and the "Swamp Plaintiffs" – depending on the location of the properties affected.

Specifically, the Lake Plaintiffs are those property owners who sought (1) ownership of the land between the ordinary low and ordinary high water mark of the Little River located within the area known as Catahoula Lake; (2) a declaration that these lands were unlawfully expropriated by the navigation project, which obstructed the natural servitude of drainage; (3) damages for this inverse condemnation; and (4) recovery of the mineral royalty and other payments received by the State from mineral leases granted over the immovable property at issue.

The Swamp Plaintiffs are those persons owning property in the southwestern portion of the Catahoula Basin, designated as "overflow lands." Much of the land bordering and lying outside Catahoula Lake was approved as swampland and transferred to the State by the federal government under the Swampland Acts of 1849 and 1850. It is not disputed that these lands are below an elevation of 36 feet mean sea level, and that their titles originated from patents issued by the State. Because ownership of these swampland tracts is not disputed, these plaintiffs sought only a declaration of unlawful expropriation and damages for the inverse condemnation.

The central issue presented to the trial court in the claim of the Lake Plaintiffs was the classification of the area known as Catahoula Lake. The Lake Plaintiffs contended that, although referred to as a lake, the area actually constitutes the banks of the Little River, thus conferring on the Lake Plaintiffs ownership of those lands between the ordinary low and the ordinary high water mark. See La. C.C. art. 456.³ The State countered, filing a reconventional demand which sought a declaration recognizing that Catahoula Lake is a lake and the State owns the bed and waters below the ordinary high water mark. See

340 So.3d 578

La. C.C. art. 450.⁴

In addition, the State filed a peremptory exception of no right of action asserting that the plaintiffs have no right of action against the State for any inverse condemnation by the federal government because the Act of Assurances is not a stipulation pour autrui, and/or a right of action only inures to those persons owning the land at the time it was taken, and only one of the plaintiffs had ownership when the navigation project was completed in 1973. The State also filed a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims are prescribed under 28 U.S.C. § 2501⁵ and, alternatively, under La. R.S. 13:5111⁶ or La. R.S. 9:5624⁷ .

Following a bench trial, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the body of water in the Catahoula Basin in 1812 was a permanent river that seasonally overflowed and covered its banks; the riparian landowners, i.e., the Lake Plaintiffs, are the owners of these river banks; and the State is liable for the inverse condemnation of these lands because of the significant obstruction of the natural servitude of drainage.

Relevant to the issue before us, the trial court denied the State's exception of prescription, finding the Cooper case to be on point and controlling. The trial court found that the two-year prescriptive period of La. R.S. 9:5624 does not apply because the statute addresses a situation in which private property is damaged for public purposes, and the case at hand involves claims for inverse condemnation, i.e., an appropriation (taking) without the institution of formal judicial proceedings. The trial court also found that the three-year prescriptive period for takings found in La. R.S. 13:5111 does not apply, because the United States, not the State, effected the taking.

The trial court then determined the prescriptive period applicable to the case is the one-year prescriptive period for damage to immovable property found in La. C.C. art. 3493⁸ . Under Article 3493, prescription runs from the date the owner of immovable property knew or should have known of the damage. The trial court found that plaintiffs knew or should have known of the increased flooding of their lands no later than 1973 when the navigation project was completed. Nonetheless, and again citing Cooper, the trial court determined that prescription had not commenced to run on the plaintiffs' claims because "the constant interference with [the plaintiffs'] natural servitudes of drain[age] by the defendant, causing the

340 So.3d 579

increased duration of the flooding of their lands, constitutes continuing tortious conduct." The trial court found, through the application of the continuing tort doctrine, that prescription had not commenced to run on the plaintiffs' claims.

In deciding the peremptory exception of no right of action, the trial court found that the United States is the party that inversely condemned the plaintiffs' lands. Referring to the language of the "Act of Assurances," the trial court concluded the State undertook the obligation of acquiring "all lands, easements, and rights of way, including flowage rights in overflow areas" necessary for the project, and agreed to "hold and save the United States free from damages" due to the same. The trial court found this language constituted an indemnification agreement. It further reasoned that the agreement was expressly intended to benefit a specific identifiable class of persons: those landowners whose properties would be adversely affected by the project. Consequently, the trial court found that those landowners are third party beneficiaries of the Act, which constitutes a stipulation pour autri, which in turn conveys upon the plaintiffs a right of action directly against the State. Again, the trial court relied on Cooper to support its conclusion.

The trial court also rejected the State's argument that a right of action for just compensation for a taking inures only...