Crooks v. State

• Decision Date: 29 May 2022
• Docket Number: 21-716
• Citation: 343 So.3d 248
• Parties: Steve CROOKS, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

343 So.3d 248

Steve CROOKS, et al.
v.
STATE of Louisiana, THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

21-716

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 29, 2022

Richard Traina, Steeg Law Firm, 201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 3201, New Orleans, LA 70170, (504) 582-1199, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: State of Lousiana, through the Department of Natural Resources

Scott David Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, 1200 North Third Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, (225) 326-6085, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Natural Resources

Machelle R. L. Hall, Morgan D. Rogers, Ryan S. Montegut, Ryan M. Seidemann, Steven B. "Beaux" Jones, Louisiana Department of Justice, Post Office Box 94005, Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005, (225) 326-6000, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Natural Resources

Robert McCuller Baldwin, G. Adam Cossey, Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, Post Office Drawer 3008, Monroe, LA 71210-3008, (318) 388-4400, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Steve Crooks, et al.

James J. Davidson, III, Christopher Joseph Piasecki, Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier, McElligott, Fontenot, Gideon & Edwards LLP, 810 South Buchanan Street, Lafayette, LA 70502, (337) 237-1660, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Steve Crooks, et al.

J. Michael Veron, Turner D. Brumby, Veron Bice Palermo & Wilson LLC, Post Office Box 2125, Lake Charles, LA 70602-2125, (337) 310-1600, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Steve Crooks, et al.

Charles S. Weems, III, Robert G. Nida, Gold Weems Bruser Sues & Rundell, Post Office Box 6118, Alexandria, LA 71307-6118, (318) 445-6471, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Steve Crooks, et al.

V. Russell Purvis, Jr., Smith Taliaferro & Purvis, Post Office Box 298, Jonesville, LA 71343, (318) 339-8526, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Steve Crooks, et al.

James L. Carroll, Attorney at Law, 107 Riser Street, Columbia, LA 71418, (318) 649-9284, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Steve Crooks, et al.

Bernard E. Boudreaux, Jr., Emma Elizabeth Daschbach, John T. Arnold, Lindsay E. Reeves, Christopher W. Swanson, Jones, Swanson, Huddell, 301 Main Street, Suite 1920, Baton Rouge, LA 70801, (225) 810-3165, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Catahoula Lake Investments, LLC, et al.

Gladstone N. Jones, III, Kevin E. Huddell, Jones, Swanson, Huddell, 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655, New Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 523-2500, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Catahoula Lake Investments, LLC, et al.

Dale R. Baringer, William H. Caldwell, Ferdinand P. Leonards, Baringer Law Firm, 201 Saint Charles Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, (225) 383-9953, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Foster Investment Corporation

Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Mary Katherine Price, Faircloth Melton Sobel & Bash, LLC, 105 Yorktown Drive, Alexandria, LA 71303, (318) 619-7755, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Justiss Oil Company, Inc.

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Gary J. Ortego, Judges.

GREMILLION, Judge.

343 So.3d 253

The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Natural Resources (LDNR), appeals the trial court's determination of the low-water mark of the Little River in the Catahoula Basin. LDNR further filed exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and no right of action following the appeal. For the following reasons, LDNR's exceptions are denied. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a long history of complex issues surrounding the classification of a body of water for purposes of determining whether LDNR wrongfully expropriated and damaged plaintiffs’ lands in various ways, including obstructing the plaintiffs’ servitude of drainage and the taking of mineral interest royalties belonging to the plaintiffs. While it has already been held that the body of water in question is a river rather than a lake, the low-water mark needed to be determined in

343 So.3d 254

order to classify what belonged to the riparian owners versus what was owned by LDNR. These proceedings pertain to the determination by the trial court of the low-water mark at 24.08 feet in the Little River located in the Catahoula Basin. The crux of LDNR's argument is that the trial court improperly used a summary proceeding, which is inappropriate for a boundary action, in setting the low-water boundary and improperly excluded all of its evidence relating to the low-water mark.

To summarize the lengthy background of this case:

In May 2006, the plaintiffs filed a "Class Action Petition to Fix Boundary, For Damages and For Declaration [sic] Judgment," primarily asserting inverse condemnation, damages to the plaintiffs’ property, and the right to the recovery of oil and gas royalties and other payments.

Following a ten-day bench trial in January 2015, the trial court rendered a final judgment in May 2017. That judgment included a reference to its May 16, 2016 Reasons for Judgment¹ in which it ruled as follows:

Specifically, and in summary, the court has concluded and does hereby hold that: (1) the body of water in the Catahoula Basin in 1812 was a permanent river that seasonally overflowed and covered its banks; (2) the riparian landowners ("Lake Plaintiffs") are the legal owners of these river banks; (3) the State is legally responsible and liable for the wrongful expropriation (inverse condemnation of the plaintiffs’ lands because of the significant obstruction of the natural servitude of drainage; (4) these expropriation damages total $28,745,438.40 (i.e., 22,813.84 acres multiplied by $1260 per acre) for the riparian owners, and $9,550,800 (i.e., 7,580 acres multiplied by $1,260 per acre) for the owners of the owners of the overflow lands ("Swamp Plaintiffs"), all subject to legal interest from the date of judicial demand until paid; and (5) the riparian landowners are entitled to a total award of $4,694,309.68 together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand until paid, which sum represents the oil and gas royalties attributable to the mineral production from the river banks between May 2003 and the date of trial.

Based on those rulings, in its May 2017 judgment, the trial court stated in part:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that there

343 So.3d 255

be judgment herein recognizing that the class of plaintiffs identified as the riparian landowner plaintiffs (also known as the "Lake Plaintiffs") are the legal owners of the river banks in the Catahoula Basin, consisting of 22,813.84 acres of lands located between the ordinary low-water mark of the Little River and the ordinary high-water of 36 feet mean sea level of the Little River, which lands are depicted in light blue and referred to as the bed and bottom of the so-called "Catahoula Lake" on the State's exhibit introduced into evidence and identified as FW 202, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part of this final judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that there be judgment herein recognizing that the class of plaintiffs identified as the overflow landowners plaintiffs (also known as the "swamp Plaintiffs’ ") are the legal owners of the 7,580 acres of land patented by the State of Louisiana in the southwestern portion of the Catahoula Basin, which lands are identified as property listing nos. 29 through 83, and as the lands owned by W.H. Ward Properties, Inc., on the State's exhibit introduced into evidence and identified as FW 202, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part of this final judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the State is legally responsible and liable for the wrongful expropriation (inverse condemnation) of the class plaintiff members’ lands- ...because of the significant obstruction of the natural servitude of drainage.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of the class of plaintiffs identified as the riparian landowner plaintiffs (i.e. the Lake Plaintiffs), and against the State, for the wrongful expropriation of their lands in the full sum of TWENTY EIGHT MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY EIGHT DOLLARS AND 40/100 ($28,745,438.40), together will legal interest from the date of judicial demand, May 4, 2006, until paid.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of the class of plaintiffs identified as the riparian landowner plaintiffs (i.e. the Lake Plaintiffs), and against the State, for oil and gas royalties attributable to the mineral production from the river banks between May 2003 and the date of trial in the full sum of FOUR MILLION SIX HUNDRED NINETY FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND NINE DOLLARS AND 68/100 ($4,694,309.68), together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand, May 4,2006, until paid.

The judgment declared awards of attorney fees, ordered the deposit of funds into the registry of the court, and made determinations regarding a variety of fees and incentive awards for the class plaintiffs’ representatives.

This judgment was appealed to this court. In Crooks v. State , 17-750, p. 23 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/28/18), 263 So.3d 540, 557, writ granted , 19-160 (La. 5/6/19), 269 So.3d 691, aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 19-160 (La. 1/29/20), 340 So.3d 574, we affirmed the trial court's finding that the Catahoula "Lake" was " ‘a permanent river that seasonally over-flowed and covered its banks.’ " We further found that the plaintiffs’ claims for inverse condemnation were not prescribed. We noted that one of LDNR's arguments on appeal was that the trial court erred in not setting "the location

343 So.3d 256

of the ordinary low-water mark to accurately determine the size of the allegedly taken property." Id. at 552. We affirmed the trial court's rulings relating to the acreage and value per acre and found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination of damages. Judge Amy dissented and would have found that the plaintiffs’ claims for...