Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brunson v. Crown Brake, LLC

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit

June 19, 2019

JOAN BRUNSON, ET AL.
v.
CROWN BRAKE, LLC, ET AL.

          APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 260, 319 HONORABLE PATRICIA EVANS KOCH, DISTRICT JUDGE

          George Carnal Gaiennie, III Gaiennie Law Firm, L.L.C. COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Crown Brake, LLC

          Cliffe Edward Laborde, III Mahtook & LaFleur COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Crown Brake, LLC

          Stacy Christopher Auzenne Auzenne Law Firm, L.L.C. COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellant - Cory Close

          Hansel Mark Harlan Harlan Law Firm COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiffs/Appellants - Joan Brunson and Dana Brunson

          Barbara Bell Melton Faircloth Melton, LLC COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiffs/Appellants - Joan Brunson and Dana Brunson

          Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Shannon J. Gremillion, and John E. Conery, Judges.

          ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, CHIEF JUDGE.

         Joan and Dana Brunson (the Brunsons) sought a declaratory judgment in response to allegations asserted by Crown Brake, LLC (Crown Brake) that a fifty-foot-wide predial servitude, running through the middle of the Brunsons' property in favor of Crown Brake's property, was created in a 2008 Act of Exchange. In response, Crown Brake filed a reconventional demand seeking confirmation of the existence of the predial servitude. Shortly thereafter, the Brunsons amended their petition, joining Cory Close (Close) to the litigation as a possible party needed for just adjudication, as a landowner whose property could be affected by the alleged predial servitude. After hearing the merits, the trial court found that the Crown Brake property, as the dominant estate, did have servitudes of passage created by the 2008 Act of Exchange across both the Brunson property and the Close property.

         Reviewing the record in accordance with our well-established property law and public records doctrine, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant judgment declaring that the 2008 Act of Exchange, as recorded, did not create a servitude of passage in favor of the Crown Brake property over either the Brunson property or the Close property.

         I.

         ISSUES

         The Brunsons present the following issues for review:

(1) whether a vague and ambiguous act can create a predial servitude;
(2) whether, when there is a conflict between a legal description and a plat in an act, the legal description or the plat controls;
(3) whether parol evidence is admissible to resolve ambiguity and reform an act purporting to create a predial servitude; and,
(4) whether the law can find in favor of a party who claims that a vague and ambiguous act creates a predial servitude but fails to introduce any parol evidence as to the intent of the parties.

         In his appeal, Mr. Close raises the following assignments of error:

(1) [T]he Honorable Trial Court committed legal error in considering parol evidence outside the four corners of the 2008 Act of Exchange, the 2014 CLOSE cash sales from Tarver and GALLOWAY, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.