Summary
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal addressed a boundary dispute between adjoining landowners in Bossier Parish involving allegedly encroaching fences. The court affirmed the boundary determination and fence-removal order, but reversed the dismissal of the defendants’ reconventional demand for contribution to the costs of moving and resetting common fences. The case was remanded for a compliant property description, attachment of the survey exhibit, and determination of recoverable wholesale relocation costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by appointing a surveyor after the parties had rested and after finding that the Neills had not yet met their burden of proof.
- Whether the Codays were entitled to dismissal of the Neills' boundary and injunction claims at the close of the initial trial proceedings.
- Whether the adjoining lots were enclosed within the meaning of La. C.C. art. 685.
- Whether the Codays were entitled to contribution from the Neills for the wholesale costs of moving and resetting the fences that would become common boundary fences.
- Whether the judgment complied with La. C.C.P. arts. 1918, 1919, and 1951 by describing the immovable property with particularity and attaching the referenced survey exhibit.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err by appointing a professional surveyor after the parties had rested because La. C.C.P. art. 3692 authorizes such an appointment in a boundary action without restricting its timing, and the Codays consented to the appointment and related evidentiary matters.
- The trial court's determination of the boundary and its order requiring removal of the encroaching fence portions were affirmed, subject to remand for a legally sufficient property description and attachment of the survey exhibit.
- The Codays' reconventional demand was improperly dismissed. Because the parties' lots were enclosed and the relocated fences would be common boundary fences, La. C.C. art. 685 permits the Codays to seek contribution toward the wholesale costs of moving and resetting the fences separating lot 2 from lots 1 and 3.
Key quotations
“The court shall fix the boundary according to the ownership of the parties; if neither party proves ownership, the boundary shall be fixed according to limits established by possession.” (7)
“When adjoining lands are enclosed, a landowner may compel his neighbors to contribute to the expense of making and repairing common fences by which the respective lands are separated.” (10)
“This article states no restrictions on the timing of the appointment — nor any other limitations.” (11)
“The Coday fences, when moved to the proper boundary in accordance with the trial court’s judgment, will be common fences pursuant to the second paragraph of La. C.C. art. 685.” (12)
Factual background
The parties own adjoining lots in the Neill Acres subdivision in Benton, Louisiana. The Neills subdivided the property in 1998 and later erected cyclone fences intended to separate their lots; the Codays purchased lot 2 in 2018 and constructed additional fences. Survey evidence was conflicting or incomplete, but court-appointed surveyor Charles Coyle concluded that portions of the Codays' fences encroached beyond the boundaries of lot 2, while also indicating that the fences generally corresponded to original survey pins and that the parties could reasonably have believed the fences were on the boundary. The trial court fixed the boundary based on Coyle's survey and ordered removal of the encroaching portions.
Procedural history
The Neills filed a petition to fix the boundary and obtain an injunction requiring removal of allegedly encroaching fences. After the parties initially rested, the trial court appointed a surveyor under La. C.C.P. art. 3692; the parties consented to the appointment, the expert's qualification, and admission of his exhibits. Following a resumed bench trial, the trial court adopted the surveyor's conclusions, fixed the boundary, ordered removal of two fences at the Codays' expense, and dismissed the remaining claims. The appellate court affirmed the boundary and removal provisions subject to amendment, reversed dismissal of the Codays' reconventional demand, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Amend the judgment to include a legal description of the affected immovable property in compliance with La. C.C.P. arts. 1919 and 1951 and attach Coyle exhibit 4. Permit the Codays to prove the expenses of moving and resetting the fences separating lot 2 from lots 1 and 3, limiting any recovery to wholesale cost, and render judgment on the reconventional demand accordingly.