Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 12, 2011; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that awarded Mrs. Marie Cambre $20,000 in general damages and mandated that Mr. Eric Carnaggio improve his property to prevent water overflow onto hers. The case stems from the historical conveyance of land in St. James Parish, Louisiana, starting in 1947, when Mr. Henry Starlone purchased 82.4 acres and later transferred portions to his daughters, including Mrs. Cambre. The Carnaggio property, owned by Eric, is surrounded by the Cambre property, with drainage features impacting both.
After inheriting the property, Eric removed a duplex in 2005 and began construction, leading to a dispute over drainage. In April 2010, Eric filed a petition claiming a servitude of passage for drainage through Mrs. Cambre’s property based on thirty years of use. Mrs. Cambre countered that Eric had blocked drainage ditches, causing flooding. The trial court ultimately ruled that Eric did not have a natural drainage servitude for sewerage and denied his claim of servitude by acquisitive prescription. The appellate court found no errors in these rulings, affirming the trial court's decisions.
Neither party appealed the trial court’s decision, allowing the case to proceed to trial. Mrs. Cambre testified about her lifelong residence on the Cambre property, detailing the installation of a septic tank system in 1968 that drained eastward. After a septic tank failure in 2007, she replaced it with a Modad system, which also drained in the same direction. She claimed that flooding began after Eric moved a duplex and elevated the land for his new home, constructing a metal building that covered a ditch and extended 15 feet onto his property. This building had gutters that drained into a pipe extending into Mrs. Cambre's yard, contributing to her flooding issues. Despite her complaints to Eric and later to his father, who had a small PVC pipe installed, the flooding persisted due to inadequate drainage. She stated that prior to Eric's construction, her property had never pooled water.
Eric testified that he had lived on the Carnaggio property his entire life and acknowledged constructing the metal building and adding dirt for his home’s foundation. He maintained that he did not significantly elevate the entire property and believed Mrs. Cambre’s concerns were overstated. He claimed that water from his gutters drained into a swell built by the parish, and he attributed flooding issues to Mrs. Cambre blocking ditches along her property. Eric argued that he had established a prescriptive right to drain his sewage toward Mrs. Cambre’s property, insisting that the sewerage historically flowed northwest through his land.
Additional testimonies included Mr. Cedric Louque, who resided in the duplex in the late 1970s and noted that his sewerage initially flowed northeast until plumbing issues caused a reroute to the western ditch, assisted by Mrs. Cambre’s husband. Mr. Frank Rizzuto, another former resident, corroborated that the duplex had two septic tanks draining into an open ditch on the west.
On cross-examination, a witness failed to recall a ditch on the west side of the property, asserting that overflow from the septic tank flowed into an eastern ditch. Mr. Anthony Boudreaux, a long-time employee of the Carnaggio family, testified about maintaining the property's ditches and confirmed that a pipe from the duplex drained into the western ditch, which also received drainage from the Cambres. He clarified that there was only one septic tank serving the duplex. Boudreaux sometimes extended his maintenance work to the Cambre property.
Mr. Gilbert Roussel, Mrs. Cambre’s brother-in-law, indicated that he had resided on the Cambre property since 1963 without observing any sewage drainage until recently, attributing the blockage of the ditch to Eric's construction activities. He stated he had never seen Boudreaux work on the ditches for either property.
Mr. Ozane Gravois, who farmed the Cambre property from the late 1970s to 2006, testified that the western ditch drained from the river into a canal at the back of the Cambre property. He maintained that ditch and confirmed he never saw Boudreaux perform any maintenance work there. Gravois recalled constructing two culverts on the Cambre property in 2006, ensuring that the ditch was not blocked at that time, although he expressed uncertainty about whether the northwest ditch drained sewage, noting he had only seen natural water enter it.
Mr. Richard Gainey, Sr., a sewer treatment installer, recounted installing a Modad system on the Carnaggio property in 1998, which drained to the east, complying with regulations regarding proximity to wells. He had conducted multiple inspections post-installation and found no change in drainage direction.
Mr. Clarence Francis, the sanitary manager for St. James Parish, noted that Mrs. Cambre had filed a sewerage complaint in December 2009. His investigation revealed that Eric’s Modad system had been discharging onto the ground and flowing to the Cambre property since Mrs. Cambre blocked the ditch.
Mr. Jody Chenier, the public works operations director, testified that Eric sought alternatives for his sewage drainage due to the blockage and received permission from Mrs. Cambre to unblock the ditch when no other routes were found.
Ms. Myra Roussel testified that prior to 2006, her mother, Mrs. Cambre, never experienced pooling of sewerage or runoff on her property. She attributed the onset of this issue to Eric's construction activities, specifically the digging of a trench that released sewerage onto Mrs. Cambre’s land, as well as the installation of a pipe without a proper drainage ditch. Roussel asserted that the family did not obstruct any drainage ditches and noted a distinction between the ditch Mr. Chenier addressed and the one relevant to this case. On December 17, 2010, the court ruled in favor of Mrs. Cambre, awarding her $20,000 in damages and mandating Eric to implement necessary modifications to prevent overflow onto her property. Eric's motion for a new trial was denied, leading to this appeal where he raised multiple assignments of error, including claims that the court incorrectly determined he altered the natural water flow, failed to recognize a servitude of drainage for the Carnaggio property, and neglected to apply relevant local ordinances regarding drainage.
The court noted that the existence of a natural drainage servitude had already been established in a prior ruling, making certain assignments of error irrelevant to this appeal. Eric's first assignment of error disputes the trial court's factual finding that he changed the natural flow of water due to his construction activities. The appellate court must afford significant deference to the trial court’s factual determinations, particularly regarding credibility and inferences drawn from conflicting testimonies. Under Louisiana Civil Code, the servient estate (Mrs. Cambre's property) must allow natural water flow from the dominant estate (Eric's property) unless human actions create an alternative flow.
Mrs. Cambre's homestead had not experienced pooling water prior to 2006. During the trial, Eric testified that Mrs. Cambre had expressed concerns about potential flooding when he added dirt to his property. He admitted to filling in a parish-built ditch and covering another with his metal shed, while also installing a pipe that drained three gutters from his shed into Mrs. Cambre's property. The pipe extended 14 inches into her land, and no ditch was available to collect the water. Eric denied altering the natural water flow, claiming that Mrs. Cambre obstructed the natural drainage by plugging the ditches. Testimony from Mr. Chenier indicated that Eric had previously informed him about Mrs. Cambre blocking a ditch; however, Mrs. Roussel clarified that the ditch Mr. Chenier unplugged was unrelated to the case.
The trial court found evidence that Eric's actions made the drainage servitude more burdensome and altered the natural water flow. Eric's first assignment of error, arguing that the court erred in this finding, was deemed without merit. In the second assignment of error, Eric claimed the court incorrectly failed to recognize his acquisition of a drainage servitude over Mrs. Cambre's property through thirty years of acquisitive prescription. According to Louisiana Civil Code Article 742, a servitude can be acquired by ten years of possession in good faith or thirty years of uninterrupted possession without title. Both parties had just titles to their properties, and Eric acknowledged that his sewerage drained onto Mrs. Cambre's property. The burden of proof for claiming acquisitive prescription lies with the claimant, requiring evidence of intent to possess as an owner, as well as peaceable, public, and unequivocal possession. Testimony from various witnesses indicated conflicting accounts about the drainage pattern, complicating Eric's claim.
Mr. Gravois indicated uncertainty regarding whether the Carnaggio sewerage drained into the ditch on the west, while Mr. Boudreaux claimed to have maintained the ditches on the Carnaggio property for ten years, stating that sewerage flowed west. However, both Mr. Gravois and Mr. Roussel, long-time residents of the Cambre property, disputed Mr. Boudreaux's maintenance claims. Mr. Gainey, who installed the Carnaggio’s Modad system in 1998, confirmed that it drained to the east, recalling the requirement to be fifty feet from Mrs. Cambre’s well. The Court determined that Eric did not meet his burden of proof for acquisitive prescription, noting inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding sewerage flow directions and maintenance of the ditches. The trial court deemed credible the testimonies suggesting that the sewerage did not consistently flow in a northwesterly direction, leading to the conclusion that the ruling was not manifestly erroneous.
In Eric's fourth assignment of error, he argued that the trial court failed to consider drainage issues related to the topography of St. James Parish. However, since Eric did not claim flooding problems on his estate, the court found no error in its omission of this issue.
In the sixth assignment of error, Eric contested a $20,000 damages award. The appellate court recognized the trial court's discretion in determining damages, citing Mrs. Cambre's expenses: $1,500 for cleaning sewerage from her property, $1,500 for a boundary re-survey, and $11,523 for addressing a natural drainage problem allegedly caused by Eric. Mrs. Cambre also testified to significant stress related to the situation. The appellate court referenced a prior case that increased an inadequate damages award, implying that the trial court's ruling was within a reasonable range of discretion.
In Smith v. Cutts, the court awarded plaintiffs $50,000 in general damages, $15,000 for loss of use, and $26,990 for repairs. The Third Circuit ruled that the servient estate is not obligated to accept effluent from the dominant estate. For an appellate court to overturn a trial court's award, it must find a clear abuse of discretion, and it may only adjust the award to the limits of reasonable discretion. The evidence supported the trial court's general damage award of $20,000. Eric's claim that Mrs. Cambre should share fault for blocking ditches was rejected; the court found he was the one responsible for obstructing the flow of water. Eric's request for a new trial was based on the discovery of evidence post-trial, specifically official maps and documents. However, the court determined this evidence was not newly discovered as it could have been obtained before the trial. Thus, Eric's assignment of error regarding the new trial was deemed without merit. The court affirmed the trial court's findings that Eric caused the obstruction, did not acquire a servitude of passage through acquisitive prescription, and upheld the general damage award, concluding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial. Additionally, an assignment of error related to hearsay was dismissed as the trial court's ruling was upheld. Finally, it was noted that by the time the suit was filed, Mrs. Cambre owned all the land around the Carnaggio property.
