Lieber v. Rust

398 So. 2d 519
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedApril 17, 1981
Docket80-C-2514
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 398 So. 2d 519 (Lieber v. Rust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lieber v. Rust, 398 So. 2d 519 (La. 1981).

Opinion

398 So.2d 519 (1981)

Samuel L. LIEBER
v.
Durward RUST.

No. 80-C-2514.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 17, 1981.
Rehearing Denied May 29, 1981.[*]

*520 Frank S. Kennedy, Rellis P. Godfrey, Kennedy, Goodman & Donovan, Shreveport, for plaintiff-applicant.

Joseph L. Hargrove, Jr., Joseph L. Shea, Jr., Hargrove, Guyton, Ramey & Barlow, Shreveport, for defendants-respondents.

WATSON, Justice.[*]

This is a dispute between adjoining property owners on the shore of Cross Lake about the proper location of a pier and boathouse. Plaintiff, Samuel L. Lieber, filed suit when defendant, Durward Rust, commenced construction of a wharf which angles across the water in front of Lieber's property.

The trial court dismissed plaintiff's suit, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Lieber v. Rust, 388 So.2d 836 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1980). A writ of review was granted to plaintiff. 395 So.2d 812 (La., 1980).

The shore area of navigable Cross Lake, the space between the water and the contour line, is a public thing. By Act 31 of 1910,[1] the legislature authorized sale of the lake bed from the State to the City of *521 Shreveport for use as a water reservoir. Act 39 of 1926[2] granted the City control of the shore area up to the 172 foot contour line.

Lieber and Rust own contiguous lots one and two in unit number two, Willow Ridge Subdivision. Each lot extends on the lake side to the 172 foot contour line, which is the line of demarcation between the private owners and the City. State v. Bozeman, 156 La. 635, 101 So. 4 (1924). The lots are subject to recorded title restrictions which provide in part that:

"Boat houses, fishing piers and other construction extending into Cross Lake shall be permitted to exist on, from, or connected to any lot with prior written approval of the Architectural Control Committee subject however to full compliance with all ordinances and regulations of the City of Shreveport."

By coincidence, Lieber and Rust are two of the three members of the Architectural Control Committee. There are no standards to govern this Committee's discretion. Approval of the Committee is by majority vote. According to Weyman Oden, Jr., the developer of the six lot subdivision and the third member of the committee, there are no specific standards for construction of piers and boathouses because:

"... The thought and idea of the whole thing was to encourage the use of materials on boathouses that would blend with the natural lake setting and surroundings." (Tr. 87)

Rust did not apply for approval of his boathouse by the Committee.

Shreveport Ordinance No. 40 of 1964 granted its Department of Public Utilities control of all improvements on Cross Lake and its shore. It provides:

"The property owners adjacent to Cross Lake shall have the exclusive right to the use of the area which abuts their property and lies between the 172 foot contour *522 line and the water level of Cross Lake, providing that all rules and regulations, restrictions and reservations, including waiver of any claims against the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, for injuries or damages, are agreed to by said property owners.
"Piers, boat houses and docks for the exclusive use of their owners will be authorized within the 172 foot contour line by permit only. These structures will be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Utilities and must be maintained in good repair.
* * * * * *
"Piers and wharves, stationary and/or floating, and other facilities extending into the Cross Lake reservoir will be limited to a maxium (sic) total length of not more than 300 feet, perpendicular to the water line, from the 172 foot contour line..."

The water line and the contour line tend to be parallel, although both are uneven lines. A concrete retaining wall marks the approximate location of the contour line.

On August 9, 1978, Rust acquired a permit for the construction of his boathouse and pier from Robert William Calhoun, the Superintendent of Cross Lake Patrol, by authority of the Department of Public Utilities. The patrol directed where the structure should be placed; construction was completed at that location. Rust's pier and boathouse are below the 172 foot contour line, entirely within the area owned by the city and completely outside the subdivision. If Lieber's property lines are extended past the 172 foot contour line into the, lake, a portion of the Rust pier is within their boundaries.

These lots are located on a concave curve of a shallow lake. Superintendent Calhoun testified that a permit was required, for the following purposes:

"To be sure that no one gets blocked off. And try to have it where each one can have access to the lake. See, you have a lot of lots that run in at an angle. Therefore, we have to turn—we—they can't run down their line and straight out into the lake. If you did, there'd be a lot of people that wouldn't get access to the lake." (Tr. 177)

Bill Guin, civil engineer for the Department of Public Utilities responsible for the supervision of Cross Lake, testified that the city tried to create equity among the lot owners around this cove so that each could build a pier. "In so doing, I had to sacrifice perhaps a view." (Tr. 189)

Calhoun Allen, Commissioner of Public Utilities at the time the ordinance was passed, testified that this pier is not perpendicular to the water line or the contour line, but that section of the ordinance cannot be applied when the extended property lines intersect. The exact angle of the pier with the water or contour line is not in evidence; the exhibits indicate the variation from the perpendicular is not substantial.

Lieber's assignments of error raise three issues for decision:

(1) Is Rust required to remove his pier for failure to obtain approval of the subdivision's Architectural Control Committee?

(2) Was Rust's permit and construction in violation of Ordinance No. 40 either because (a) it is not perpendicular to the contour line or (b) it encroaches on Lieber's exclusive right to use the area in front of his property?

(3) Does Lieber have a predial servitude which entitles him to view Cross Lake without obstructions on the shore or water?

VIOLATION OF BUILDING RESTRICTIONS

The City has statutory authority to regulate the shore and bed of Cross Lake. This includes authority over the placement of piers in that area. However, the subdivision owners agreed that any piers constructed would also be approved by their representatives on the Architectural Control Committee. The purpose of this restriction was to prevent the construction of unsightly structures detracting from the ambiance of the area. However, Lieber *523 does not complain that the pier is an inferior structure, only that it is placed where he does not want it located. The City exercised its paramount right to dictate the location. There is no evidence that the Rust Pier and boathouse are offensive except for their placement. Plaintiff's complaint is not directed toward a question within the competence of the Architectural Control Committee. Therefore, Rust's failure to obtain approval of the Committee is immaterial.

VIOLATION OF SHREVEPORT ORDINANCE NO. 40 OF 1964

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

New Orleans City v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
728 F. Supp. 2d 834 (E.D. Louisiana, 2010)
Woodward v. Cutrer
838 So. 2d 180 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
BELLE TERRE LAKES HOME OWNERS v. McGovern
805 So. 2d 1286 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
Jones v. City/Parish of East Baton Rouge
712 So. 2d 675 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1998)
Lieber v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development
682 So. 2d 1257 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
F.W.F. Co. v. City of Gretna
508 So. 2d 897 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1987)
Quarles v. Jackson Parish Police Jury
482 So. 2d 833 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Perkins v. F.I.E. Corp.
762 F.2d 1250 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
Bunch v. Town of St. Francisville
446 So. 2d 1357 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
398 So. 2d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieber-v-rust-la-1981.