Lacombe v. Carter
975 So. 2d 687, 2008 WL 239673 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a trespass action who is in actual possession of the property only needs to establish a prima facie title to the land, which is sufficient against a defendant who is a mere trespasser and claims no ownership rights. General damages for trespass may include compensation for mental anguish, which can be proven by evidence of distress and inconvenience without requiring proof of medical treatment.
Facts:
- Randy Lacombe purchased property adjacent to Saline Bayou, a portion of which is inundated by water from a state-built control structure.
- Prior to Lacombe's purchase, Shawn Daze, Brian Mabou, and others had erected duck blinds and a floating boathouse on the inundated portion of the property.
- After his purchase, Lacombe requested that the defendants remove the structures from his property.
- The defendants refused to remove the duck blinds and boathouse.
- In response to the dispute, the defendants circulated flyers and posted signs asserting that Lacombe was endangering public hunting and fishing rights.
- Lacombe testified that the flyers negatively affected his hardware business.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Lacombe filed a trespass suit against Shawn Daze, Brian Mabou, and others in a Louisiana trial court.
- The defendants filed an exception, alleging the State of Louisiana was an indispensable party because it owned the property.
- The trial court granted the exception, and the State was joined as a party.
- Lacombe amended his petition to seek a declaratory judgment of ownership against the defendants and the State.
- The trial court found for Lacombe, declaring the property boundary, ordering the defendants to remove their structures, and enjoining them from future entry.
- The trial court also awarded Lacombe $5,000 in damages from each defendant for the trespass.
- Defendants Shawn Daze and Brian Mabou (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, with Randy Lacombe as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do individuals who refuse to remove structures from another's land commit a trespass for which the landowner can recover damages, including for mental anguish, when the landowner can show prima facie title to the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Decuir, J.
Yes, individuals who refuse to remove structures from another's land commit a trespass for which damages, including for mental anguish, are recoverable. A landowner in actual possession only needs to show a prima facie title, which is good against a trespasser who has no claim of ownership. The court found that Lacombe met his burden of proof by presenting deeds, a survey, and expert testimony establishing his ownership, which was further supported by the State's disclaimer of any claim to the land. The court held that trespassers cannot defend their actions by challenging potential defects in the landowner's title. Furthermore, the damages awarded were not excessive because they compensated Lacombe for both the loss of use of his property and the mental anguish caused by the defendants' intentional public campaign against him, which harmed his community standing and business.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the established principle in property law that a trespasser lacks standing to challenge the quality of a landowner's title. By holding that a 'prima facie title is good against trespassers,' the court reinforces a low evidentiary bar for landowners in possession when suing for trespass against those with no competing claim of right. The decision also provides a clear example of how general damages for mental anguish can be substantiated in a trespass case, linking them not only to the physical invasion but also to subsequent intentional acts of harassment by the trespasser. This broadens the scope of recoverable damages and may deter trespassers from engaging in retaliatory conduct against landowners seeking to enforce their property rights.
Unlock the full brief for Lacombe v. Carter