Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Vermilion Parish Police Jury
Docket: Nos. 15-637, 15-638
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 3, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The consolidated lawsuits address the boundary line between Lafayette and Vermilion Parishes, with the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government appealing a trial court judgment. The trial court had granted an exception of prescription from the Vermilion Parish Police Jury, issued a declaratory judgment in favor of the Vermilion Police Jury, and dismissed a reconventional demand from Lafayette City-Parish. The court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Historically, in 1844, the Louisiana legislature established Vermilion Parish from Lafayette Parish, using then-existing timber as boundary markers, which later deteriorated, leaving the boundary undefined. In 2002, both parishes sought to clarify the boundary through a Joint Cooperative Endeavor Agreement, tasking the State Land Office with conducting research and field surveys. The agreement explicitly stated that it aimed to re-establish the boundary rather than alter it, and both parishes agreed to accept the State Land Office's findings.
In August 2003, following the completion of the State Land Office's boundary report, both parishes enacted ordinances accepting the findings. However, on October 1, 2013, Lafayette City-Parish attempted to repeal these ordinances, claiming the State Land Office’s survey was flawed. In response, the Vermilion Police Jury enacted its ordinance affirming the validity of the Intergovernmental Agreement and requesting Lafayette City-Parish to adhere to it. Lafayette City-Parish disregarded this request and proceeded to schedule a new survey on April 23, 2014, while concurrently filing a petition to notify the Vermilion Parish Police Jury of its intention to conduct the boundary survey.
On August 7, 2014, the Vermilion Police Jury filed a petition against the Lafayette City-Parish in Vermilion Parish, seeking a judgment to declare the binding nature of an Intergovernmental Agreement. The Lafayette City-Parish responded, and on November 6, 2014, the cases were consolidated for trial. Following this, Lafayette City-Parish filed additional pleadings including a demand to set aside a prior survey by the State Land Office. The Vermilion Police Jury subsequently filed a peremptory exception of prescription. The trial commenced on February 2, 2015, leading to a judgment on February 18, 2015, in favor of the Vermilion Police Jury. The court confirmed the validity and enforceability of the 2002 Joint Cooperative Endeavor Agreement and the State Land Office survey from August 13, 2003, which re-established the common boundary between the parishes. The court dismissed Lafayette City-Parish's reconventional demand and claims of nullity as untimely. Vermilion Police Jury was granted the right to seek injunctive relief against any contrary actions by Lafayette City-Parish. The Lafayette City-Parish appealed, asserting two errors: the district court’s finding that the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement was valid and not an absolute nullity, and the finding that the survey did not contain gross error. These errors were argued to stem from the claim that the Intergovernmental Agreement unlawfully changed parish boundaries without voter approval.
Should the Intergovernmental Agreement be deemed an absolutely null contract, Lafayette's eleven-year delay in challenging its validity is inconsequential, as claims of absolute nullity are imprescriptible. The Vermilion Police Jury contends that altering parish boundaries requires voter approval under Louisiana Constitution Article 6, Section 1(B). However, they assert that the Intergovernmental Agreement's purpose was not to change boundaries but to "re-establish" their actual location, which does not necessitate voter approval. Louisiana Revised Statutes 50:221 to 50:228 permit a parish governing authority to unilaterally ascertain and fix boundary lines without a confirmation election. This authority was invoked by Lafayette City-Parish in its April 23, 2014 ordinance, which is based on a prior filing from April 21, 2014.
Despite La.R.S. 50:221 being a procedural statute intended for joint surveys before court action, it does not preclude parishes from agreeing on existing boundary interpretations. An alternative to the adversarial process is found in La. Const. art. 7, Section 14(C), which allows political subdivisions to engage in cooperative endeavors. The Lafayette City-Parish and Vermilion Police Jury entered such an agreement in 2002 to "re-establish" the boundary and accepted the State Land Office’s survey findings. Nevertheless, Lafayette City-Parish argues that the issue at hand is not the agreement's purpose, but rather its outcome, asserting that the agreement led to an unlawful change in the historic boundary established by the legislature in 1844.
The Lafayette City-Parish contends that the Intergovernmental Agreement's ultimate cause is unlawful, violating public order. Under Louisiana law, a contract must have lawful cause; if not, it is null (La. Civ. Code art. 1906, 2029). An obligation is unlawful if its enforcement yields results prohibited by law or public policy (La. Civ. Code art. 1968). Juridical acts cannot undermine laws protecting public interest (La. Civ. Code art. 7), and contracts violating public order are absolutely null (La. Civ. Code art. 2030). An action to annul such a contract does not prescribe (La. Civ. Code art. 2032). The trial court ruled the cause of the Intergovernmental Agreement lawful, a legal question reviewed de novo for correctness. The appellate court found no error in this determination, noting that the document clearly intended to establish the boundary line between parishes, as permitted by statute (La.R.S. 50:221).
The Lafayette City-Parish further argues that the State Land Office's survey did not use the best evidence for determining the historic boundary, constituting "gross error" under La.R.S. 50:128. This statute states that approved surveys are binding and can only be contested for gross error through direct action. The trial court evaluated the 2003 survey's accuracy based on testimonies from three surveyors and various submitted documents, maps, and correspondence.
Mr. Evans, in his deposition, detailed his research process prior to conducting the physical survey, which involved examining records from the State Land Office and parish depositories to determine the boundary location. He noted that the legislative Act establishing Vermilion Parish provided little clarity due to ambiguous physical reference points. A significant breakthrough was a 1956 survey map by Joseph E. Schexnaider, which referenced a 1931 Bernard Engineers map as the official boundary line. Although Mr. Evans could not locate the Bernard Engineers map, he interviewed Mr. Schexnaider, who provided a 1976 survey plat that aligned with the Bernard Engineers' reference. This information influenced Mr. Evans' subsequent survey work, as local surveyors were also using the Bernard Engineers' boundary.
Conversely, Mr. Mayeux, another surveyor, emphasized the importance of the field notes of John Campbell and Joseph Irwin, asserting that these notes provided more accurate references to physical landmarks mentioned in the legislative Act. In a dialogue, Mr. Mayeux suggested that Mr. Evans should have prioritized these earlier field notes as the best evidence for establishing boundary points. Mr. Sellers, a civil engineer and surveyor with extensive experience, supported Mr. Evans' methodology, stating that the Bernard Engineers survey aimed to define the parish line per the 1844 legislative Act, while he believed the field notes were irrelevant to the parish boundary survey.
Ultimately, the credibility of the evidence presented is a factual matter, and appellate courts typically do not overturn trial court findings absent clear error, as established in Rosell v. ESGO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989).
An appellate court may not overturn a fact finder's reasonable conclusions based on the entire record, even if it would have weighed the evidence differently. To reverse a finding, the appellate court must identify a lack of a reasonable factual basis and determine that the fact finder was clearly wrong. The trial court did not specify which evidence was most persuasive. Upon review, the appellate court found no manifest error in the trial court's determination that Lafayette City-Parish did not prove that the August 13, 2003 State Land Office boundary report was grossly erroneous and merely changed the boundary line. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, which granted Vermilion Parish Police Jury's declaratory judgment and dismissed Lafayette’s reconventional demand. All appeal costs, totaling $94.05, were assigned to Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government. Both parishes adopted enabling ordinances in 2002, with subsequent ordinances and resolutions establishing survey timelines and procedures. The legislature permits boundary changes by ordinance approved in a special election requiring two-thirds voter approval. Testimony indicated older maps had inconsistencies in boundary locations, reflecting different interpretations by various mapmakers regarding specific geographical references.
