Brandon Wade Hirstius v. Cleco Corporation, Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC, Charter Communications, LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2019 CA 1637

BRANDON WADE HIRSTIUS

VERSUS

CLECO CORPORATION,
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.,
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.

Judgment Rendered: JUN 0 4 2021

On Appeal from the
22nd Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2013- 12105

Honorable William J. Knight, Judge Presiding

Brandon Wade Hirstius Plaintiff A
- ppellant,
Lacombe, LA In Proper Person

Daniel A. Webb Attorneys for Defendant -Appellee,
Laken N. Davis Renaissance Media, L.L.C.
New Orleans, LA

BEFORE: CHUTZ, LANIER, AND HESTER, JJ.

HESTER, J.

This is a trespass action that has been before this court numerous times

involving various parties and issues. The lengthy procedural history will not be

repeated in this opinion.

BACKGROUND

Pertinent to this appeal, Brandon Wade Hirstius appeals a May 8, 2019

judgment rendered in his favor against Renaissance Media, L.L. C. 1, awarding

Hirstius $ 12, 800. 00 in damages for Renaissance' s contempt of court. In a previous

judgment rendered on July 16, 2018, the trial court ordered Renaissance to remove

its cable equipment from the utility pole, including two guy wires, anchors, and

cable, on Hirstius' s property within 30 days of the judgment. On April 29, 2019,

Renaissance removed the aerial cable and everything it owned from the utility pole.

The guy wires and anchors were not removed from the utility pole because

Renaissance did not own that particular equipment. Hirstius assigns error to the trial

court' s failure to require Renaissance to remove all of its equipment affecting

Hirstius' s property after holding Renaissance in contempt on May 8, 2019.

Renaissance maintains that it has removed all items that it owns from Hirstius' s

property and it has paid all court-ordered contempt damages. Renaissance argues

that it cannot remove the remaining utility pole and supporting guy wires/ anchors

because that equipment is owned by Cleco Corporation and bears equipment

numbers that verify that Cleco is the owner of the guy wires and anchors. Hirstius

counters that the trial court failed to hear all of the evidence concerning ownership

of the pole, guy wires, and anchors.

1 In his original petition, Hirstius incorrectly named Charter Communications, L.L.C. as defendant,
but Renaissance answered the suit stating that it was the proper party defendant. Subsequently,
Hirstius amended the suit to name Renaissance. All other defendants have settled Hirstius' s
claims, been cast in judgment, or dismissed in separate proceedings that are not relevant to this
particular appeal.

2

LAW AND ANALYSIS

A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with

the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect

for its authority. La. Code Civ. P. art. 221. The trial court is vested with great

discretion in determining whether a party should be held in contempt for disobeying

the court' s orders and its decision will only be reversed when the appellate court

discerns an abuse of that discretion. de Nunez v. Bartels, 97- 1384 ( La. App. 1st

Cir. 9/ 9/ 98), 727 So. 2d 463, 469- 70. A finding that a party is in contempt for

refusing to obey the orders of a court is not intended to benefit the litigant alleging

contempt, although the infliction of a punishment may inure to that party' s benefit.

The object of a contempt finding is to vindicate the dignity of the court. Id. at 470.

The trial court issued reasons for the contempt judgment, finding that while

Renaissance had complied with the order to remove the equipment it owned from

Hirstius' s property, Renaissance failed to remove the equipment as ordered within

30 days of the July 2018 judgment. The trial court found the almost nine- month

delay in complying with the judgment was inexcusable. For that reason, the trial

court found it justifiable to award damages to Hirstius in the amount of $50. 00 per

day for the delay, which totaled $ 12, 800. 00.

Hirstius asserts that the trial court should have also ordered the removal of the

remainder of the equipment (the two guy wires and anchors) from his property. In

its reasons for judgment, the trial court recognized that, despite the July 16, 2018

judgment, removal of the guy wires and anchors was not a viable option because the

guy wires and anchors were not owned by Renaissance. In a previous appeal in this

case, Hirstius v. Cleco Corp., 2014- 1457 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 5/ 15), 2015 WL

3547043, ** 4- 5 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2015- 1282 ( La. 9/ 25/ 15), 178 So. 3d

571, this court affirmed the trial court' s determination that Cleco is the owner of the

utility pole in question, and has the right to maintain the utility pole, including its

t

attached facilities (which plainly included the guy wires and anchors supporting the

pole), at its present location on Hirstius' s property. This finding constituted the law

of the case in this matter at the time of the July 2018 judgment. See Louisiana Land

and Exploration Co. v. Verdin, 95- 2579 (La. App. 1 st Cir. 9/ 27/ 96), 681 So. 2d 63,

65, writ denied, 96- 2629 ( La. 12/ 13/ 96), 692 So.2d 1067, cert. denied, 520 U.S.

1212, 117 S. Ct. 16965 137 L.Ed. 2d 822 ( 1997). The trial court did not err in

implicitly taking judicial notice of this fact in finding Renaissance could not remove

the guy wires and anchors that it did not own. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion

in the trial court' s ruling ordering that Renaissance pay contempt damages to

Hirstius but not further ordering the removal of the guy wires and anchors that

support the pole.

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

The costs of this appeal are to be divided equally by Renaissance Media, L.L.C. and

Brandon Wade Hirstius.2

AFFIRMED.

2 Hirstius has been granted pauper status. Although not liable for the advancement of costs as they
accrue, an indigent party may ultimately be responsible for the cost of an unsuccessful lawsuit.
Cariere v. The Kroger Store, 52, 846 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 8/ 14/ 19), 276 So. 3d 1150, 1154, writ
denied, 2019- 01471 ( La. 11/ 12/ 19), 282 So. 3d 224. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article
5186 mandates that in a pauper case, costs are to be paid by the party against whom judgment is
rendered. While Hirstius did not prevail on appeal, he did prevail on his contempt motion at the
trial court.Therefore, we find it equitable to assess the appellate costs equally between
Renaissance, the party in contempt of the trial court, and Hirstius, who was unsuccessful on appeal.