State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development v. Triangle Property, LLC
Opinion
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CM 12-143
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
VERSUS
TRIANGLE PROPERTY, LLC, ET AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CATAHOULA, NO. 25,273 HONORABLE GLEN WADE STRONG, DISTRICT JUDGE
JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.
MOTION TO DISMISS UNLODGED APPEAL DENIED.
Bernard Lindes Knobloch, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 94245 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (225) 237-1341 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development Virgil Russell Purvis, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 298 Jonesville, Louisiana 71343 (318) 339-8526 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: CCI Management Corporation
Josiah William Seibert, III Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2038 Vidalia, Louisiana 71373 (318) 336-9676 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Triangle Property, L.L.C.
Richard Joseph Wilson Gaharan & Wilson Post Office Box 1346 Jena, Louisiana 71342 (318) 992-2104 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: W. B. McCartney Oil Company GENOVESE, Judge.
Defendant-Appellee, CCI Management Corporation (CCI), moves to dismiss
the unlodged appeal of Plaintiff-Appellant, the State of Louisiana, through the
Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). For the following reasons,
we grant the motion to dismiss the unlodged appeal.
This case involves an expropriation proceeding filed in connection with the
State of Louisiana’s attempt to make Highway 84 a four-lane highway, which runs
through the Town of Jonesville in Catahoula Parish. In connection with its highway
expansion project, DOTD sought to expropriate some property containing a strip mall
and a convenience store. The property was owned by Triangle Property, L.L.C.
(Triangle Property), but leased to other entities. DOTD filed an expropriation suit
against Triangle Property; W.B. McCartney Oil Company (McCartney Oil); CCI; the
State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections; Payless Cash
Advance, Inc. of Arkansas; and, Ricky Smith d/b/a Bug Busters Pest Control
Company. Triangle Property leased the convenience store with retail gasoline outlet
to McCartney Oil, who subleased the property to CCI. CCI operated a Subway
franchise in connection with the convenience store. The other defendants named in
the lawsuit leased spaces in the strip mall, which was completely demolished as a
result of the highway expansion project.
Triangle Property, McCartney Oil, and CCI filed reconventional demands
against DOTD, alleging that they had been inadequately compensated for the
expropriation. With regard to the reconventional demands, a jury trial was held from
July 12, 2010, to July 16, 2010, and the jury found that Triangle Property, McCartney
Oil, and CCI had been undercompensated for their property rights. The jury awarded
$156,480.96 in damages to Triangle Property, $558,279.00 in damages to McCartney
Oil, and $894,764.00 in damages to CCI. On August 16, 2010, the trial court signed a judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict, and the notice of judgment was mailed
on August 18, 2010. DOTD did not appeal the judgment.
On August 26, 2010, McCartney Oil filed a motion for additur or, alternatively,
for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On March 25, 2011, the trial
court signed a judgment indicating that McCartney Oil could have either a new trial or
an additur in the amount of $1,386,536.51. McCartney Oil opted for the new trial
instead of the additur and requested that the new trial be fixed as a jury trial. The
notice of the March 25, 2011 judgment was mailed on March 29, 2011. No appellate
review was sought of that judgment.
Meanwhile, CCI and Triangle Property sought to have the trial court issue writs
of mandamus directing DOTD to pay them the amounts they had been awarded
pursuant to the judgment of August 16, 2010. In its mandamus request, CCI asked
that a writ of mandamus be issued or, alternatively, that its judgment be severed from
McCartney Oil’s judgment which will be subject to a new jury trial. The trial court
issued writs of mandamus in favor of CCI and Triangle Property, and, on October 5,
2011, the trial court signed a judgment ordering DOTD to pay CCI and Triangle
Property the amounts which had been awarded to them pursuant to the August 16,
2010 judgment. The notice for the judgment of October 5, 2011, was mailed on
October 6, 2011. On November 16, 2011, DOTD filed a motion for suspensive appeal
with regard to the trial court’s October 5, 2011 judgment. The order of appeal was
signed on November 23, 2011. The appeal has not yet been lodged in this court.
At this time, CCI seeks to have this court dismiss DOTD’s unlodged appeal.
CCI asserts that the trial court’s judgment of October 5, 2011, which grants CCI’s
application for writ of mandamus, is a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling. CCI
points out that the mandamus judgment was obtained pursuant to La.R.S.
48:456(B), which provides as follows:
2 B. Those portions of the final judgment which award an increase in the value of the part taken, an increase in severance damages, compensation for any other type of loss or damage, together with interest payable on those sums not deposited, attorney fees, and expert witness fees shall be paid within ninety days after becoming final. Thereafter, upon application by the owner or owners, the trial court may issue a writ of mandamus to enforce payment.
CCI contends that the purpose for its mandamus request under La.R.S.
48:456(B) was to have the trial court order DOTD to pay the increased amount
awarded by the jury, i.e., the amount of the jury award which exceeds the amount
which DOTD estimated to be fair compensation and deposited into the registry of the
court pursuant to La.R.S. 48:444. CCI points out that La.R.S. 48:456(B) provides that
a judgment awarding an increase in the value of the property seized does not become
payable until 90 days after the judgment making such an award has become final.
CCI contends that, on August 16, 2010, the trial court signed a judgment which
awarded increased expropriation damages. CCI also contends that the trial court
recognized that the August 16, 2010 judgment, which was not appealed by DOTD,
had become final prior to CCI’s request for a writ of mandamus. CCI maintains that
pursuant to La.R.S. 48:456(B), the trial court was authorized to issue a writ of
mandamus directing payment of the August 16, 2010 judgment on the merits.
However, CCI argues that the October 5, 2011 judgment granting the writ of
mandamus is an interlocutory judgment which is not appealable under La.Code Civ.P.
art. 2083. CCI contends that, while a final judgment decides the merits and is
appealable, La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083(C) provides that “[a]n interlocutory judgment is
appealable only when expressly provided by law.” CCI contends that the October 5,
2011 judgment is interlocutory because it does not decide the merits of the case. CCI
asserts that, without a codal provision expressly designating the interlocutory
judgment as appealable, the judgment remains a non-appealable, interlocutory
judgment.
3 We note that the October 5, 2011 judgment, which is at issue in this unlodged
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development v. Triangle Property, LLC (State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development v. Triangle Property, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.