Brookwood-Riverside, L.L.C. v. The Baton Rouge Water Works Company and The Baton Rouge Water Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT
G
2020 CA 1173

LI
BROOKWOOD- RIVE RSI DE, L. L. C.

VERSUS

THE BATON ROUGE WATER WORKS COMPANY AND
THE BATON ROUGE WATER COMPANY

Judgment Rendered:
MAY 2 5 2021

On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Docket No. 679818

Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding

H. Alston Johnson, III Counsel for Plaintiff/ Appellant
Shelton Dennis Blunt Brookwood -Riverside, L. L. C.
J. Alan Harrell
Jeffrey M. Barbin
Baton Rouge, LA

Brett P. Furr Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Caroline K. Darwin The Baton Rouge Water Works
Baton Rouge, LA Company

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ.

l

McCLENDON, J.

In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges a trial court's judgment that denied

its request for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August of 2017, Brookwood -Riverside, L. L. C. ( Brookwood) purchased

from Community Coffee, L. L. C., certain immovable property located on North Third

Street in Baton Rouge to construct and operate a self -storage facility. In March of

2018, after the demolition of an existing building on the property, Brookwood

unearthed an underground pipeline on the property. At the time of the purchase

of the property, Brookwood obtained a title examination, but the title exam failed

to reveal a servitude granted on November 5, 1959, by Community Coffee in favor

of the Department of Transportation and Development ( DOTD). The servitude

granted DOTD the right"' to construct, maintain and operate a closed storm sewer

line" beneath the property. Pursuant to the servitude, DOTD installed the closed

storm sewer line sometime around 1960. DOTD has used the servitude

continuously since then.

Upon the discovery of the servitude beneath its property, Brookwood

obtained consent from DOTD to relocate the servitude and reroute the DOTD line

to accommodate the new building that was to be built over the existing DOTD line.

On June 12, 2018, Brookwood executed a Ratification of Servitude in favor of

DOTD, which was recorded on June 15, 2018. 1

On February 19, 2019, Brookwood filed a Petition for Damages against the

Baton Rouge Water Works Company ( BRWW) asserting that BRWW was

discharging a large volume of saltwater into the storm sewer system of the City of

Baton Rouge/ Parish of East Baton Rouge ( City/ Parish) through its property and

without permission. z Brookwood alleged that it never consented to the use of its

1 On April 29, 2019, Brookwood and DOTD recorded an Amendment to Ratification of Servitude
and Termination of Servitude, in which DOTD released the 1959 servitude, and Brookwood and
DOTD agreed to a new servitude encompassing the area of the relocated servitude.

z Brookwood also named as a defendant Baton Rouge Water Company, which BRWW admitted in
its answer is a registered trade name of BRWW.

2

property as a conduit for transfer through the pipeline under its property for

discharge of the saltwater into the storm water drainage system, which ultimately

drained into the Mississippi River. 3

On May 6, 2020, Brookwood filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction,

seeking to prohibit BRWW from discharging the saltwater through Brookwood' s
4
property. Brookwood asserted that the servitude applies only to operating a

closed storm sewer line and does not contemplate the entirely different use by a

third party who did not obtain permission from the prior or the current owner.

Following a hearing on August 5, 2020, wherein the trial court heard

testimony and received evidence, the court denied granting the preliminary

injunction. In its oral reasons for judgment, the trial court found that there was

no trespass, stating that the saltwater discharged by BRWW was not dangerous

or hazardous and that the storm sewer line was authorized and contemplated

under the 1959 servitude. The court further stated that without a trespass,

Brookwood would have to establish irreparable injury, which it failed to do. Based

on these findings, the trial court denied Brookwood' s request for a preliminary

injunction. On August 19, 2020, the trial court signed a judgment, and this appeal

followed.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3601A provides that "[ a] n

injunction shall be issued in cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may

otherwise result to the applicant, or in other cases specifically provided by law."

The writ of injunction is a harsh, drastic, and extraordinary remedy. It should only

issue in those instances where the moving party is threatened with irreparable loss

or injury and is without an adequate remedy at law. Irreparable injury has been

3 Brookwood subsequently filed a claim under its title insurance policy with Fidelity National Title
Company ( Fidelity). Fidelity fully indemnified Brookwood for the cost of relocating the DOTD line,
approximately $62, 000. 00. Thereafter, BRWW moved to voluntarily dismiss its third -party demand
against Fidelity for contribution, and on June 17, 2020, BRWW' s claims against Fidelity were
dismissed without prejudice.

4 We note that the trial court recognized that the request for injunctive relief should have been by
petition. See LSA- C. C. P. art. 3601D (" Except as otherwise provided by law, an application for
injunctive relief shall be by petition."). However, the trial court stated that the substance of the
pleading, rather than the name of the pleading, controlled and found no error in the filing.
3

interpreted to mean a loss that cannot be adequately compensated in money

damages or measured by a pecuniary standard. Morris v. Trust Technologies,

LLC, 18- 0831 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 28/ 19), 274 So. 3d 15, 18- 19.

Generally, plaintiffs seeking issuance of a preliminary injunction bear the

burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie showing

that they will prevail on the merits and that irreparable injury or loss will result

without the preliminary injunction. LSA- C. C. P. art. 3601; Hill v. Jindal, 14- 1757

La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 17/ 15), 175 So. 3d 988, 1002, writ denied, 15- 1394 ( La.

10/ 23/ 15), 179 So. 3d 600. However, a threat of irreparable injury need not be

shown when the deprivation of a constitutional right is at issue or when the act

sought to be enjoined is unlawful. Hill, 175 So. 3d at 1002. The only issues to be

considered at a hearing on a preliminary injunction are whether the moving party

has met its burden of proving that it is entitled to the relief sought as a matter of

law and the likelihood that it will likely prevail on the merits of the case. Louisiana

Ass' n of Self -Insured Employers v. Louisiana Workforce Com' n, 11- 1892

La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 28/ 12), 92 So. 3d 397, 400.

Although the judgment on the preliminary injunction is interlocutory, a party

aggrieved by a judgment either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is

entitled to an appeal. LSA- C. C. P. art. 3612B; Hill, 175 So. 3d at 1002. We are,

however, mindful that appellate review of a trial court' s issuance of a preliminary

injunction is limited. The issuance of a preliminary injunction addresses itself to

the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless a

clear abuse of discretion has been shown. Hill, 175 So. 3d at 1002.

In its appeal, Brookwood maintains that this is a simple continuing trespass

case and that BRWW is using its property without consent and compensation. 5

Therefore, Brookwood argues that it need not show irreparable injury because of

S Trespass is defined as an unlawful physical invasion of the property or possession of another
person. A trespasser is one who goes upon another' s property without his consent. A person
damaged by trespass is entitled to full indemnification. W & T Offshore, L. L. C. v. Texas Brine
Corporation, 17- 0574 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 10/ 18), 250 So. 3d 970, 980, affirmed in part, reversed in
amort, 18- 0950 ( La. 6/ 26/ 19), _ So. 3d

51

the unlawful trespass. Brookwood also avers that DOTD' s 1959 servitude does not

encompass BRWW' s present use of Brookwood' s property, being the discharge of

nearly 300 gallons per minute of ground water from a saltwater interceptor well,

and therefore, the trial court erred in denying its request for a preliminary

injunction.

The record establishes that BRWW discharges water into the City/ Parish

storm sewer system, which is connected to the DOTD line at issue. Ultimately,

the water drains into the Mississippi River. As part of a groundwater conservation

plan to address saltwater intrusion into the City/ Parish' s drinking water, BRWW

drilled an interceptor or scavenger well to intercept chlorides from the groundwater

aquifer before they reached the pump station and production wells.6 Prior to the

drilling of the well, BRWW obtained a No Objection letter, dated June 18, 2012,

from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ( LDEQ) to discharge the

intercepted saltwater from the scavenger well via an eight -inch pipeline to the

Mississippi River. The letter stated:

The pipeline will tie into an existing storm drainage system at the
intersection of Eiland Street and River Road ... where the
groundwater will flow into the existing storm drainage system and
directly to the Mississippi River. LDEQ understands the pipeline route
may vary, however the point at which the flow enters the Mississippi
River will remain the same.

The LDEQ letter also provided that "[ t] he routing of the groundwater to the

Mississippi River does not have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a

violation of the water quality standards." Thereafter, BRWW installed a system of

underground drainage pipelines that tied into the existing City/ Parish' s drainage

system located along Eiland Street. From there, the City/ Parish' s line ties into a

DOTD line on its way to the Mississippi River. This is the DOTD line that crosses

Brookwood' s property. BRWW began discharging saltwater from the scavenger

well in March of 2014.

6
The scavenger well project was approved by Capital Area Groundwater Conservation
Commission, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, the Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, and the City/ Parish.
5

The primary issue before this court is whether DOTD' s 1959 servitude

encompasses BRWW' s use of the servitude. Brookwood argues that it does not,

citing jurisprudence that servitudes in DOTD' s favor for particular purposes do not

extend to third -party use for different purposes. Brookwood contends that BRWW

offered no written evidence that DOTD authorized it to use the storm sewer line

in the first place and no evidence of any kind that DOTD purported to grant BRWW

rights to Brookwood' s property. Brookwood suggests that although BRWW

introduced evidence at the hearing that LDEQ did not object to BRWW discharging

ground water from its interceptor well into the Mississippi River, the No Objection

letter in no way affected private property rights.

There are two kinds of servitudes: personal servitudes and predial

servitudes. LSA- C. C. art. 533. A personal servitude is a charge on a thing for the

benefit of a person. LSA- C. C. art. 534. The personal servitude of right of use

confers in favor of a person a specified use of an estate less than full enjoyment.

LSA- C. C. art. 639. The right of use may confer only an advantage that may be

established by a predial servitude. LSA- C. C. art. 640. Rights of use are real rights

which confer limited advantages of use or enjoyment over an immovable.

Richard v. Hall, 03- 1488 ( La. 4/ 23/ 04), 874 So. 2d 131, 145; W & T Offshore,

L. L. C. v. Texas Brine Corporation, 17- 0574 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 10/ 18), 250 So. 3d

970, 976, affirmed in part, reversed in part, 18- 0950 ( La. 6/ 26/ 19), So. 3d

A right of use includes the rights contemplated or necessary to enjoyment at the

time of its creation as well as rights that may later become necessary, provided

that a greater burden is not imposed on the property unless otherwise stipulated

in the title. LSA- C. C. art. 642. Further, a right of use is regulated by application

of the rules governing usufruct and predial servitudes to the extent that their

application is compatible with the rules governing a right of use servitude. LSA-

C. C. art. 645.'

Title III of Book II of the Louisiana Civil Code of 1870 was revised, amended, and reenacted by
Acts 1976, No. 103, § 1, effective January 1, 1977. The 1976 revision suppressed the personal
servitude of "use" as a nominate real right and established the different category of "rights of use."
3 A. N. Yiannopoulos, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise—Personal Servitudes, § 222 ( 4th ed. 2000).
Limited personal servitudes are real rights that confer on a person limited advantages of use or

R

Brookwood asserts that even if DOTD could authorize third -party use

without landowner consent, BRWW's use of the servitude failed to comply with

Louisiana Civil Code article 642. Brookwood argues that because the interceptor

well did not become operational until 2014, BRWW' s use was not contemplated or

necessary to enjoyment of the DOTD servitude in 1959. As to rights that later

became necessary, Brookwood asserts that there is no jurisprudence suggesting

that " necessary" means what later becomes the most convenient option for a non-

party to the servitude. It avers that BRWW' s use is entirely different from that of

DOTD.

At the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Brookwood introduced verified

pleadings, stipulations, and a copy of the sale of the property to Brookwood.$ After

the introduction of the evidence and argument by counsel, BRWW moved for an

involuntary dismissal, which was denied. Thereafter, BRWW presented its

evidence, which included numerous exhibits and the testimony of four witnesses.

Randy Hollis was accepted as an expert in the field of environmental

engineering, including the design regulation and permitting of effluent discharges,

both storm water and wastewater. 9 Mr. Hollis testified that DOTD' s storm water

system is one of two water collection systems. One is for biogenic pathogens, i. e.,

sanitary sewer, and the storm water system, which is a catchall for everything

else. He stated that, in 1959 when the servitude was created, storm sewer

systems were commonly used as a means of conveyance for all kinds of waste

products by the public. With regard to the interceptor well, Mr. Hollis testified that

the volume of water discharged by BRWW is less than 10% of the capacity of the

DOTD line. It was Mr. Hollis' s opinion that in 1959, when DOTD obtained the

enjoyment over an immovable belonging to another person. Yiannopoulos, § 223. Like usufruct,

they are charges on property in favor of a person rather than an estate; like predial servitudes,
they are necessarily charges on an immovable belonging to another owner and are confined to
certain advantages of use or enjoyment. Thus, they are both " personal" and " limited." Id. See
Richard, 874 So. 2d at 145.

B Brookwood did not call any witnesses to testify.

9 Mr. Hollis also testified as a fact witness as a consulting engineer for BRWW in the design and
permitting of the interceptor well.
7

servitude, the servitude contemplated the flow of the saltwater from the

interceptor well, which he also believed to be true today.

Ryan Scardina, the technical services manager with BRWW, testified that

the flow rate of the saltwater is a constant 280 gallons per minute with an

approximate chloride content of 800 parts per million. Mr. Scardina further

testified that the water is flowing through the pipeline at a very low pressure, and

he did not anticipate any problems with leaks. Additionally, Dennis McGehee,

BRWW' s water production manager, testified that BRWW monitors the salinity

from the interceptor well on a weekly basis and that the salinity level is relatively

constant.

In it oral reasons, the trial court found that the saltwater discharge into the

drainage system fell within what was contemplated under the terms of the 1959

servitude. The trial court stated:

I think the evidence has clearly shown that it is not as dangerous a
substance in the concentrations that are present in this fact scenario.
That it is not a hazardous matter at all. Basically, it is about the
same level of a saltwater pool that people have.... 1, 700 parts per
million or something like that is what they said a saltwater pool was.
Well, this is less than 800 parts per million in this ... I find that it is
not a harmful substance such as to create a trespass, and without a
trespass, they would have to show irreparable injury which, of

course, they have not shown irreparable injury.
Let me go further though. From what I can see from the
evidence and applying the law to the evidence that we have, the
court believes that basically this was authorized and contemplated
under the 1959 servitude.... [ I] t does not provide a greater burden,
or impose a greater burden on the property than was allowed
through the 1959 servitude.
Also, the evidence put forth, mostly through the testimony of
Mr. Hollis, is that this type of substance going through this pipeline
at the time of the creation was really the kind of thing that is
contemplated because at that time all kinds of things that are a lot
worse than saltwater in the concentrations that we have in this case
were contemplated to go through that pipe at the time the servitude
was issued, and it was designed to carry those kind of deleterious
materials to the river for disposal.

Based upon our review of the record, we find that the DOTD servitude

created in 1959 contemplated BRWW' s use of DOTD' s pipeline to discharge

saltwater. The servitude does not define or limit what can be discharged through

the DOTD pipeline. However, contrary to Brookwood' s argument that BRWW' s

use of the DOTD line is entirely different from that of DOTD, the DOTD line was

installed to convey water, which is precisely what BRWW is doing. Moreover, the

water being discharged by BRWW is not harmful. As testified by Mr. Hollis, in

1959, virtually everything was discharged into the storm sewer system and

contemplated by the servitude. Accordingly, we find that BRWW' s use of the

servitude does not exceed the scope of the servitude. Additionally, the evidence

clearly established that BRWW' s use of the DOTD pipeline has not placed a greater

burden on Brookwood' s property. No evidence has been presented to show that

the contents or the volume of the saltwater discharged by BRWW poses any threat

to the DOTD pipeline or Brookwood' s property. BRWW's use of the DOTD pipeline

is consistent with the nature and extent of the servitude, and we can find no abuse

of discretion by the trial court in denying Brookwood' s request for a preliminary

injunction.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we affirm the trial court's August 19, 2020 judgment

that denied Brookwood' s request for a preliminary injunction. All costs of this

appeal are assessed to Brookwood -Riverside, L. L. C.

AFFIRMED.

we,