Timothy Matthew Blackwood v. Robert Reeves

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2023 CA 0504
No. 2021- 12239 Division " I"

TIMOTHY MATTHEW BLACKWOOD

VERSUS

7-fw ROBERT REEVES

CIW 2023 CA 0505
No, 2021- 12240 Division " I"

JESSICA LYNN BLACKWOOD

VERSUS

ROBERT REEVES

CIW 2023 CA 0506
No. 2021- 12242 Division " H"

TIMOTHY MATTHEW BLACKWOOD

VERSUS

LAURIEN REEVES

CIW 2023 CA 0507
No. 2021- 12244 Division " H"

JESSICA LYNN BLACKWOOD

VERSUS

LAURIEN REEVES

Judgment Rendered:,
FEB 2 9 2024

On Appeal from the
Twenty -Second Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
State of Louisiana

The Honorable Reginald T. Badeaux, Ill, Judge Presiding

Thomas H. Gray Attorney for Defendant/ Appellant
Slidell, Louisiana Laurien Reeves

L. Kevin Coleman Attorney for Defendant/ Appellant
Mandeville, Louisiana Robert Reeves

Tammy M. Nick Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellees
Slidell, Louisiana Timothy Matthew Blackwood and
Jessica Lynn Blackwood

BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, 1 WOLFE, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.

The Honorable Guy Holdridge, retired, is serving as judge pro tempore by special appointment
of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

HOLDRIDGE, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of contempt and a motion to modify a

preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction. For the reasons that follow, we

reverse the trial court' s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case involves a dispute between neighbors. The appellees, Timothy

Matthew Blackwood and Jessica Lynn Blackwood, were next- door neighbors with

the appellants, Robert Reeves and Laurien Reeves, in Slidell, Louisiana.. On May

18, 2021, the Blackwoods each filed a petition for protection from stalking or sexual

assault and a temporary restraining order against the Reeves, resulting in four

different case numbers. 2 in their petitions, the Blackwoods alleged that Mr. Reeves

yelled at them through the fence in their backyard with " harassing remarks" and that

they feared for the safety of their family. Mr. Blackwood alleged that the intentional

harassment and stalking was a re -occurring issue. Mr. Blackwood attached to his

petition a sheet that documented the past incidents that began in June of 2019. The

incidents included Mr. Reeves discharging a firearm in close proximity to the

Blackwoods' home, Mr. Reeves allowing his boat to trespass onto the Blackwoods'

property, and Mr. Reeves shining a flashlight into the Blackwoods' living room

through their windows.

On .lune 11, 2021, a hearing officer was scheduled to hear the two petitions

for protection from stalking or sexual assault and two temporary restraining orders.'

Subsequent to the hearing, the parties consented to the dismissal of the protective

The appeals of those proceedings were assigned docket numbers 2023 CA 0504, 2023 CA 0505,
2023 CA 0506, 2023 CA 0507.

s We note that all four of the Blackwoods' cases were consolidated by the trial court.

2

orders and the issuance of a preliminary injunction in favor of the Blackwoods.` The

preliminary injunction prohibited the Reeves from harassing or threatening the

Blackwoods and from going within fifteen yards of the Blackwoods or their

residence. The preliminary injunction ordered the Reeves to relocate any cameras

that were directed at the Blackwoods' property, as well as not having any lights

directed at the Blackwoods' property and home. The Reeves were also ordered not

to have any firearms on their property, The preliminary injunction was signed on

June 15, 2021, and was to remain in effect until March 31, 2022.

On November 24, 2021, the Blackwoods filed a Rule for Contempt against

the Reeves, alleging that they failed to comply with the preliminary injunction. The

Blackwoods stated that one of the Reeves' outdoor cameras was turned slightly, but

was not relocated, and another outdoor camera of the Reeves was never relocated on

the balcony of their home. The Blackwoods further stated that the Reeves continued

to have outdoor lights shining into their home at night, as well as playing loud music

in a purposeful effort to disturb the [ Blackwoods.]"

On March 15, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on the Rule for Contempt

where testimony was heard and evidence was submitted. The trial court found the

Reeves to be in contempt and fined them each $ 500.00 to be paid within thirty days,

awarded the Blackwoods attorney' s fees, extended the expiration date of the

injunction to November 15, 2022, and ordered a review hearing to be set for May

10, 2022. 5 The Reeves were also ordered to bring their property into compliance

4 We note that the preliminary injunction should have been issued in conformity with La. C. C. P.
art. 3601, et seq. It appears that the trial court failed to follow the correct procedure when issuing
the Blackwoods' preliminary injunction. The initial petitions for protection from stalking or sexual
assault and temporary restraining orders were converted by the trial court into a preliminary
injunction. Thereafter, the articles of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding preliminary and
permanent injunctions became applicable.

s The Blackwoods alleged that they waived a compliance hearing due to the Reeves' efforts to
achieve compliance.

3

with the preliminary injunction on or before April 15, 2022. On March 31, 2022,

the trial court signed a judgment in accordance with its ruling.

On November 3, 2022, the Blackwoods filed a Second Rule for Contempt and

Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction against the Reeves, wherein they alleged

that the Reeves " willfully and intentionally conspired to and did violate the

Preliminary Injunctions by incessantly harassing the [ Blackwoods.]" The

Blackwoods were in the process of extending their outdoor fence in the summer of

2022, when they started to receive visits from various businesses and departments

from St. Tammany Parish to investigate " an addition on their home without a

permit." These departments included a representative from Entergy, St. Tammany

Parish Code Enforcement Department, a drainage inspector from St. Tammany

Parish Department of Engineering, and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries. The Blackwoods alleged that these various departments visited their home

to investigate " frivolous and unfounded complaints made by the [ Reeves] to harass

the [ Blackwoods.]"

In addition to the alleged harassment, the Blackwoods stated that Mrs. Reeves

filed a frivolous petition for protection from abuse against Mr. Blackwood in an

effort to retaliate against the Blackwoods for filing the preliminary injunction. After

several continuances, Mrs. Reeves dismissed her petition. Therefore, the

Blackwoods asked the trial court to find the Reeves in contempt for violating the

preliminary injunction and asked the trial court to " extend the preliminary injunction

for another 365 days or longer if the [ c] ourt [ found] good cause to do so[.]"

On January 4, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the Blackwoods' Second

Rule for Contempt and Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction. Both Mr. and

Mrs. Blackwood testified at the hearing, as well as their neighbor, Gary Duplechain,

4

who lived on their street. The Reeves did not testify at the hearing. The

Blackwoods introduced several exhibits' into evidence at the hearing, including: ( 1)

a January 25, 2022 complaint allegedly made by the Reeves regarding the

Blackwoods' property; ( 2) a February 15, 2022 complaint allegedly made by the

Reeves regarding the Blackwoods' property; and ( 3) a July 14, 2022 complaint

allegedly made by the Reeves regarding the Blackwoods' property. However, none

of these exhibits submitted into evidence specifically stated that Mr. Reeves made

the complaints regarding the Blackwoods' property.

The Blackwoods also submitted into evidence the correspondence between

Mr. Reeves and the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dated July 20, 2022, and

July 21, 2022. 8 The correspondence showed an e- mail from Mr. Reeves to a

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries agent stating his concern about the actions of

the Blackwoods on their property affecting the potential sale of his home.

Specifically, Mr. Reeves stated in the e- mail that he was concerned with "additional

fill brought into the flood prone area [ that they lived] in." Mr. Reeves further stated

in another e- mail to the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries agent that his property

would continue to see flooding and water retention as a result of the work being done

without approval or permits. It is presumed that the work Mr. Reeves was referring

to was the work being done by the Blackwoods, as the complaint by Mr. Reeves

contained pictures of the Blackwoods' property and referenced their address. The

Blackwoods argued that this specific complaint to the Department of Wildlife and

On December 14, 2022, Mr. Reeves filed a motion to continue the hearing, noting that he would
be out of the country on a previously scheduled work assignment on the day of the hearing. The
trial court denied the motion to continue at the hearing on January 4, 2023.

We note that several other exhibits were submitted into evidence by the Blackwoods to support
their case.

8 At the hearing, Mr. Blackwood stated that his wife made a public records request to St. Tammany
Parish and to the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries asking for any complaints related to their
address.

5

Fisheries was significant because on July 20, 2022, Mrs. Reeves dismissed her

petition for protection from abuse against Mr. Blackwood.9 In sum, the Blackwoods

argued that all of these complaints about their property occurred after their first

Motion for Contempt was filed against the Reeves, warranting repeated acts of

harassment against them.

After hearing arguments from counsel, the trial court made an oral ruling,

finding that it was Mr. Reeves who made all of these complaints regarding the

Blackwoods' property. Therefore, the trial courtdenied the rule for contempt against

Mrs. Reeves and granted the rule for contempt against Mr. Reeves, finding that the

Blackwoods proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Reeves " engag[ ed]

in a course of action ... to harass the [ Blackwoods, and] to waste their time and to

cause [ them] anxiety." Mr. Reeves was fined $ 5, 000. 00 and if he defaulted, he was

to serve thirty days in the parish jail. Mr. Reeves was also cast with all court costs

and attorney' s fees. The trial court granted the Blackwoods' Motion to Modify

Preliminary Injunction and converted it into a permanent injunction against both Mr.

and Mrs. Reeves. On January 26, 2023, the trial court signed a judgment in

accordance with its oral ruling. Subsequently, Mr. and Mrs. Reeves, separately,

devolutively appealed the January 26, 2023 judgment.

On appeal, Mr. Reeves assigns as error the following:

1. The trial court erred in applying the wrong burden of proof, but even
under the " clear and convincing evidence" burden it did apply was

manifestly erroneous as a matter of law as well as fact in finding
Mr. Reeves] in contempt [ for] alleged acts of "harassment."

2. The trial court erred in including [ Mr. Reeves'] wife when it
declared the expired injunction to be permanent and in requiring
Mr. Reeves'] wife to divorce him in order to be released from same.

3. Strictly in the alternative the trial court erred in assessing a fine that
was prohibited by black letter law.

On appeal, Mrs. Reeves assigns as error the following:

4 We note that Mrs. Reeve' s case against Mr. Blackwood is not part of the record on appeal.
6

I . The [ trial] [ c] ourt
erred in applying the " clear and convincing"
burden of proof when " beyond a reasonable doubt" burden is
required.

2. The [ trial] [ c] ourt
erred by allowing " hearsay" e[-] mail evidence
into the record under the business records exception to the hearsay
rule.

3. The [ trial] [ c] ourt erred by imposing a permanent injunction on
Defendant, [ Mrs.] Reeves[,] based on her status as the wife of [Mr.]
Reeves. The " guilt by association" placed on Mrs. Reeves puts her
in a position requiring her to defend the judgment imposed against
Mr. Reeves.

4. The [ trial] [ c] ourt erred by suggesting that the [ trial] [ c] ourt' s
imposition of the permanent injunction against Mrs. Reeves would
be lifted if Mrs. Reeves divorced her husband, [ Mr.] Reeves. The
suggestion of the [ trial] [ c] ourt had a chilling effect on the exercise
of the legal rights of Mrs. Reeves.

5. The [ trial] [ c] ourt erred by concluding that the unverified hearsay
circumstantial evidence proved that the " intent' of [Mr.] Reeves was
to harass [ the Blackwoods] when he allegedly reported [ the
Blackwoods'] building code violations to St. Tammany Parish Code
Enforcement and wetlands violations to the Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries.

6. The [ trial] [ c] ourt erred by concluding that the building code
violations and wetlands violations were a " red herring" of no

concern in balancing the right of [Mr.] Reeves to express his First
Amendment freedom of speech against the [ trial] court['] s dignity
in obeying the [ trial] court['] s prior order.

7. The [ trial] [ c] ourt erred by not strictly construing its own injunction
orders.

8. The [ trial] [ c] ourt erred by not requiring the circumstantial evidence

to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

9. The [ trial] [ c] ourt erred by failing to give proper weight to the
affidavit of Representative Robert Owen that there was no building
permit issued for work done on the [ Blackwoods'] property.

10. The [ trial] [ c] ourt erred by ordering [the Reeves] to pay attorney [' s]
fees to [ the Blackwoods'] attorney.

APPLICABLE LAW

An applicant must show that irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise

result to the applicant before an injunction may be issued. See La. C. C. P. art. 3601.

7

Courts are generally reluctant to issue an injunction to restrain torts such as

defamation or harassment. Lassalle v. Daniels, 96- 0176 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5110196),

673 So. 2d 704, 709, writ denied, 96- 1463 ( La. 9120196), 679 So. 2d 435, cert. denied,

519 U.S. 1117, 117 S. Ct. 963, 136 L.Ed.2d 848 ( 1997). An injunction is a harsh,

drastic, and extraordinary remedy and is only issued where the petitioner is

threatened with irreparable loss or injury without adequate remedy at law.

Irreparable injury is that which cannot be adequately compensated in damages, or

for which damages cannot be compensable in money. Id.

The request for a permanent injunction in an ordinary proceeding can only be

granted after a trial on the merits, in which the burden of proof must be founded on

a preponderance of the evidence, rather than a prima facie showing. Hughes v.

Muckelroy, 97- 0618 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9123197), 700 So. 2d 995, 998. After a full trial

on the merits, the question of whether a permanent injunction should be granted or

denied is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court' s

decision will be disturbed on review only in cases where a clear abuse of its

discretion has been shown. Lassalle, 673 So. 2d at 708.

Violation of an injunctive order may be punished by contempt, by an action

for damages, or by compelling the actor to undo any act performed in violation of

the injunctive order. In re Interdiction of Wright, 2013- 0862 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

3127114), 144 So. 3d 7, 12, writ denied, 2014- 0832 ( La. 6/ 20114), 141 So. 3d 810.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3611 provides:

Disobedience of or resistance to a temporary restraining order or
preliminary or final injunction is punishable as a contempt of court. The
court may cause to be undone or destroyed whatever may be done in
violation of an injunction, and the person aggrieved thereby may
recover the damages sustained as a result of the violation.

Article 3611 emphasizes the availability of punishment for contempt as a method of

enforcing an injunctive order, as opposed to the general provisions on contempt. La.

C. C. P. art. 3611, Official Revision Comments - 1960, Comment ( a); see La. C. C. P.

arts. 221- 227. A contempt of court is defined as 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. Contempts of court are of two kinds,

direct and constructive. La. C. C. P. art. 221. A direct contempt of court is committed

in open court and of which it has personal knowledge, while a constructive contempt

of court is any contempt other than a direct one. La. C. C. P. arts. 222 and 224. The

willful violation of a court order, such as the preliminary injunction at issue here,

constitutes a constructive contempt of court. See La. C.C.P. art. 224( 2). To find

willful disobedience, the trial court must find that the person violated the court' s

order intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, without justifiable excuse. Lang

v. Asten, Inc., 2005- 1119 ( La. 1113106), 918 So.2d 453, 454 (per curiam). A trial

court is vested with great discretion in determining whether a party should be held

in contempt of court, and its decision will only be reversed when the appellate court

finds an abuse of that discretion. Marshall v. Marshall, 2019- 0879 ( La. App. 1 Cir.

7114120), 308 So3d 1178, 1182, writ denied, 2020- 01009 ( La. 11/ 4120), 303 So. 3d

652.

While we review the ultimate contempt decision under the abuse of discretion

standard, in a case of civil contempt, we review the trial court' s predicate factual

determinations under the manifest error standard. Greeson v. USAA Life Insurance

Company, 2016- 0667 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12122/ 16), 209 So. 3d 1066, 1070. Thus, on

review of facts, we do not decide whether the trial court was right or wrong; rather,

we consider the entire record to determine whether a reasonable factual basis exists

for the finding. Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp, and Development, 617

So. 2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993). When there are two views of the evidence, the

0

factfinder' s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Marshall, 308

So. 3d at 1182.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Reeves' Appeal

We first address Mr. Reeves' appeal. This matter started when the

Blackwoods filed petitions for protection from stalking or sexual assault and

temporary restraining orders against the Reeves. See La. C. C. P. art. 3603. 1.

Following a stipulation between the parties, the protective orders were dismissed

and a preliminary injunction was issued against the Reeves in accordance with La.

C. C. P. art. 3602. The special provision regarding protective orders no longer applied

to the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. Clearly, the trial court erred

in converting the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction without a full

trial on the merits. The record does not disclose that notice of a trial on the

permanent injunction was issued by the trial court, nor does the permanent injunction

comply with La. C. C.P. art. 3605 by describing in reasonable detail the act or acts

sought to be restrained. However, Mr. Reeves has not assigned as error the granting

of the permanent injunction as to him, but only assigns as error the granting of the

permanent injunction against his wife. Therefore, we pretermit any discussion of

the permanent injunction as to Mr. Reeves and will only consider the contempt ruling

of the trial court.

In his first assignment of error, Mr. Reeves argues that the trial court applied

the wrong burden of proof in finding him in contempt of court for the alleged acts

of harassment. Mr. Reeves argues that this was a criminal contempt proceeding and

not a civil contempt proceeding. Therefore, Mr. Reeves argues that the proper

burden of proof applicable to his case was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The

Blackwoods contend that the trial court properly found, by clear and convincing

10

evidence, that Mr. Reeves was in contempt of court for not complying with the

preliminary injunction.

Determining whether a contempt proceeding is civil or criminal in nature is

often difficult. Streiffer v. Deltatech Construction, LLC, 2019- 0990 (La. App. 4 Cir.

3125120), 294 So. 3d 564, 571. The dispositive inquiry is the nature of the

punishment imposed— that is, whether the punishment is remedial or punitive. Id.

If remedial, the contempt is civil; if punitive, the contempt is criminal. Id. In Hicks

on Behalf of Feiock v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631- 32, 108 S. Ct. 1423, 1429- 30, 99

L.Ed.2d 721 ( 1988), the United States Supreme Court stated the following:

T] he critical features are the substance of the proceeding and the
character of the relief that the proceeding will afford. " If it is for civil
contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the
complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive,
to vindicate the authority of the court." Gompers v. Bucks Stove &
Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441, 31 S. Ct. 492, 498, 55 L.Ed. 797 ( 1911).

The character of the relief imposed is thus ascertainable by applying a
few straightforward rules. If the relief provided is a sentence of
imprisonment, it is remedial if "the defendant stands committed unless
and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court' s order,"
and is punitive if "the sentence is limited to imprisonment for a definite
period." Id., at 442, 31 S. Ct. at 498. If the relief provided is a fine, it
is remedial when it is paid to the complainant, and punitive when it is
paid to the court, though a fine that would be payable to the court is
also remedial when the defendant can avoid paying the fine simply by
performing the affirmative act required by the court' s order.

Since we find herein that the Blackwoods did not show by either standard that

Mr. Reeves violated the preliminary injunction in this case, we pretermit any further

discussion as to whether this was civil or criminal contempt.

In his first assignment of error, Mr. Reeves also argues that the trial court erred

in finding him in contempt of court for violating the preliminary injunction.

Specifically, Mr. Reeves argues that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt

for alleged acts of harassment against the Blackwoods. The preliminary injunction

issued on June 15, 2021, ordered Mr. Reeves to make modifications to his property,

as well as prohibiting him from harassing or threatening the Blackwoods, from

11

contacting the Blackwoods personally, in writing, through e- mails or text messaging,

including social media or through a third person. Mr. Reeves was also prohibited

from going within fifteen yards of the Blackwoods or their residence.

The record reveals that the only evidence submitted by the Blackwoods

involving Mr. Reeves is the July 2022 correspondence between Mr. Reeves and the

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries agent. 10 In this correspondence, Mr. Reeves

states his concern about " the additional fill brought [ into] the flood prone area [ he

lives] in" and submitted photographs. This evidence alone is not sufficient to

constitute harassment warranting Mr. Reeves to be held in contempt of court. This

correspondence between Mr. Reeves and the Wildlife and Fisheries agent did not

obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration ofjustice, impair the dignity of

the court or respect for its authority, or violate the express terms of the preliminary

injunction. See La. C. C. P. art. 221.

After a thorough review, we find that there is no reasonable factual basis in

the record to support the trial court' s finding that Mr. Reeves was in contempt of

court for violating the preliminary injunction or the March 31, 2022 judgment. The

evidence submitted by the Blackwoods does not show that Mr. Reeves intentionally,

knowingly, purposefully, and without justifiable excuse violated the trial court' s

order by harassing the Blackwoods. The facts presented would, at best, be

characterized as petty bickering between the parties. Greene v. Greene, 19- 37 ( La.

App. 5 Cir. 12111119), 286 So. 3d 1103, 1128. Contacting public bodies to ensure

that a neighbor is complying with state and public statutes cannot be considered

harassment justifying a contempt finding. Mr. Reeves had a logical and justifiable

reason for his actions since he alleged that the Blackwoods may have violated a

J" Although the Blackwoods allege that Mr. Reeves sent e- mails to the St. Tammany Parish Code
Enforcement on four occasions to make sure that the Blackwoods outdoor work would not have
an adverse impact on the sale of his property, we do not have these e- mails in the record before us.
12

Parish or State ordinance and/ or policy with the ongoing project on their property,

and he was concerned about possible flooding being caused by their actions.

Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in finding Mr. Reeves guilty of

contempt of court. See Zaorski v. Usner, 2022- 1326 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 10/ 31/ 23),

So. 3d, , 2023 WL 7175773, at * 4; Couvillon v. Couvillon, 2023- 0056 ( La.

App. 1 Cir. 8129123), 2023 WL 5542771, at * I I ( unpublished); Hanna v. Hanna,

53, 210 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 11120119), 285 So. 3d 116, 122.

Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting the Blackwoods' rule for

contempt against Mr. Reeves. We pretermit discussion of Mr. Reeves' remaining

assignments of error due to our holding in this matter.

Mrs. Reeves' Appeal

We first address Mrs. Reeves' third assignment of error, wherein she argues

that the trial court erred in imposing a permanent injunction on her. Specifically,

Mrs. Reeves argues that the trial court erred in sanctioning her with a permanent

injunction simply because she is the wife of Mr. Reeves.

The law applicable to permanent injunctions is found in La. C. C. P. art. 3601,

which provides that the issuance of a permanent injunction takes place only after a

trial on the merits in which the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.

Parish of East Feliciana ex rel. East Feliciana Parish Police Jury v. Guidry, 2004-

1197 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 8/ 10105), 923 So.2d 45, 53, writ denied, 2005- 2288 ( La.

3/ 10106), 925 So. 2d 515. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3601( A) states,

in pertinent part: "[ 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[.]" Traditionally, an injunction has been held to be a harsh, drastic

and extraordinary remedy which should only issue where the petitioner is threatened

with irreparable harm and has no adequate remedy at law. Kruger v. Garden Dist.

13

Ass' n, 2000- 1135 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 1/ 17101), 779 So. 2d 986, 991, writ denied, 2001-

0733 ( La. 5/ 4/ 01), 791 So. 2d 658. Appellate courts review a trial court' s granting

of a permanent injunction utilizing the manifest error standard. Mary Moe, L.L.C.

v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 2003- 2220 ( La. 4114/ 04), 875 So. 2d 22, 29.

After reviewing the record, we find that there is no evidence in the record to

show that a trial on the merits was held and that notice was sent to Mrs. Reeves of a

trial date. 1 l Furthermore, no evidence was presented by the Blackwoods to establish

irreparable harm caused to them by Mrs. Reeves, and there was no evidence before

the trial court that any such harm has been or would be suffered by either of the

Blackwoods if injunctive relief was not granted. At the hearing, there was limited

testimony regarding Mrs. Reeves, which included her allegedly taking photographs

of the Blackwoods' property that were submitted to the Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries. However, Mr. Blackwood confirmed in his testimony that he was not

certain that the photographs were taken by Mrs. Reeves. Therefore, due to the

Blackwoods' failure to establish this essential element of their burden of proof, the

issuance of the permanent injunction against Mrs. Reeves is reversed.

Accordingly, based on the record before us, we find that the trial court erred

in granting the permanent injunction against Mrs. Reeves. We pretermit discussion

of Mrs. Reeves' remaining assignments of error due to our holding in this matter.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the trial court' s January 26, 2023 judgment is reversed.

and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. All costs of

11 The trial court' s order stated that the hearing was on a preliminary injunction that may extended
for another 365 days without interruption or longer. There is no reference to a permanent
injunction being issued on Mrs. Reeves in the order. Therefore, the trial court improperly
converted the hearing for a preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction hearing. See Richard
v. Bourgeois, 19- 494 ( La. App. 5 Cir. 3118120), 293 So. 3d 790, 794.
14

this appeal are assessed to the appellees, Timothy Matthew Blackwood and Jessica

Lynn Blackwood.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

15

STATE OF LOUISIANA TIMOTHY MATTHEW
BLACKWOOD

COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS

FIRST CIRCUIT ROBERT REEVES

DOCKET NUMBER 2023 CA 0504 C/ W
2023 CA 0505 C/ W
2023 CA 0506 C/ W
2023 CA 0507

MILLER, J., dissenting, in part.

I dissent in part from the majority opinion herein as I would affirm the trial

court' s finding of contempt.