JAMES H. HOOPER, JR. AND PATSY HOOPER
HERO LANDS COMPANY, ALLEN HERO, AND THE PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES
FROM 25TH JDC, PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES NO. 59-740, DIVISION
"A" Honorable Kevin D. Conner, Judge
R. Koerner, Jr. KOERNER LAW FIRM COUNSEL FOR
Francis J. Lobrano William A. Schafer CARVER, DARDEN,
KORETZKY, TESSIER, FINN, BLOSSMAN & AREAUX, L.L.C.
Pivach II Timothy Thriffiley PIVACH, PIVACH, HUFFT,
THRIFFILEY & DUNBAR, L.L.C.
Cooley, IV Assistant Parish Attorney Plaquemines Parish
Government COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Sandra Cabrina
Jenkins, Judge Regina Bartholomew-Woods)
L. BELSOME JUDGE
heavily litigated property dispute, Appellants, James H.
Hooper, Jr. and Patsy Spencer Hooper, seek review of three
amended judgments, which established a property boundary, and
dismissed two defendants on partial summary judgment. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
case arises out of a property dispute near New and Burmaster
Streets, in Plaquemines, Louisiana. The dispute concerns the
property boundary between Lot 26, owned by Appellants, and
Lot 27, owned by Hero Lands Company. The case is saddled with
a long and arduous procedural history, which includes
multiple appeals. The pertinent facts and procedural history
are set forth below.
2011, the Plaquemines Parish Government (PPG) requested that
Hero Lands donate a servitude on its property in order to dig
and maintain a drainage ditch. Once Hero Lands verbally
agreed, Mr. Hugh McCurdy, III was hired to survey and
identify the servitude. After the land was surveyed, the
property was cleared in preparation for digging. Claiming
they owned a portion of Lot 27 which was cleared by PPG,
Appellants filed a verified petition to confirm boundary
lines, for possessory action, damages and injunctive relief
against Defendants, Hero Lands, Allen Hero, PPG and Mr.
hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial
court issued a partial summary judgment setting the property
boundary lines between Lots 26 and 27, resulting in each
property being 204.077 feet wide. At a later hearing, the
trial court granted two separate partial summary judgments in
favor of Defendants, PPG and Mr. McCurdy, dismissing
Appellants' trespass claims pursuant to La. R.S.
appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment on
the boundary issue, finding that it used the proper method to
resolve the boundary lines dispute. Hooper v. Hero Lands
Co., 15-0929, p. 23 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/30/16), 216 So.3d
965, 979, writ denied, 16-0971 (La. 9/16/2016), 206
So.3d 205 (Hooper I). However, it remanded the
matter ordering the trial court to provide an accurate legal
description in the judgment in accordance with La. C.C.P.
art. 1919. Id., 15-0929, p. 27, 216 So.3d at
981. Additionally, this Court dismissed the Appellants'
appeal of the partial summary judgments in favor of PPG and
Mr. McCurdy, because those judgments were not designated as
final judgments for purposes of appeal. Id.,
15-0929, p. 3 n.1, 216 So.3d at 969.
remand, the trial court appointed a surveyor to provide legal
descriptions consistent with the boundary lines set by the
court. After a hearing, the trial court adopted the legal
description provided by the surveyor. Subsequently, the trial
court signed an order designating the two partial summary
judgments, in favor of PPG and Mr. McCurdy, final appealable
second appeal of the three partial summary judgments, the
appeal was dismissed because the judgments were not proper
final judgments. Hooper v. Hero Lands Co., 18-0227,
2018 WL 6683211, at *9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/19/18),
unpub.The trial court has since amended the three
partial summary judgments to include the necessary language
and designate the judgments as final judgments. This third
for summary judgment are reviewed de novo 'under
the same criteria governing the trial court's
consideration of whether summary judgment is
appropriate.'" Weddborn v. Doe, 15-1088, p.
4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/4/16), 194 So.3d 80, 84 (internal
quotation omitted). La. C.C.P. art. 966 (A)(3) provides that
a motion for summary judgment "shall be granted if the
motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there