Jesse Justin Colvin and Ruby Sue Hill Colvin v. Robert Bradford Jones and Roni Michelle Reppond Jones Consolidated with Robert Bradford Jones and His Wife, Roni Michelle Reppond Jones v. Jessie Justin Colvin and His Wife, Ruby Sue Hill Colvin

Judgment rendered January 14, 2026.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 56,654-CA
No. 56,655-CA
(Consolidated Cases)

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

No. 56,654-CA No. 56,655-CA

JESSE JUSTIN COLVIN AND ROBERT BRADFORD JONES
RUBY SUE HILL COLVIN AND HIS WIFE, RONI
Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHELLE REPPOND JONES
Plaintiffs-Appellees
versus
versus
ROBERT BRADFORD JONES
AND RONI MICHELLE JESSIE JUSTIN COLVIN AND
REPPOND JONES HIS WIFE, RUBY SUE HILL
Defendants-Appellees COLVIN
Defendants-Appellants

*****

Appealed from the
Third Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Union, Louisiana
Trial Court Nos. 50,974 and 50,978

Honorable Monique Babin Clement, Judge

*****

DURRETT LAW OFFICES, LLC Counsel for Appellants
By: NiKayla Leann Willaert

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL S. COYLE Counsel for Appellees
By: Michael Stephen Coyle

*****

Before HUNTER, MARCOTTE, and ELLENDER, JJ.

HUNTER, J.

Plaintiffs, Jesse Justin Colvin and Ruby Sue Hill Colvin, appeal a

district court ruling establishing the “old downed fence” as the boundary

between the properties and issuing a permanent injunction in favor of Robert

Bradford Jones and Roni Michelle Reppond Jones, including damages in the

amount of $7,500.00 to each of the Joneses. For the following reasons, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS

On July 12, 2012, Jesse and Ruby Colvin (collectively, the “Colvins”)

purchased an immovable property in Union Parish, twenty-three acres

located at 2479 Highway 828, Farmerville, LA (“Colvin Property”), where

they established their primary residence. Two years later, on or about March

25, 2014, Robert and Roni Jones (collectively, the “Joneses”) purchased a

one-acre tract of immovable property located at 3227 Linville Fire Tower

Road, Farmerville, LA (“Jones Property”), where they established their

primary residence. The parties became friends and good neighbors for over a

decade until the boundary line became a matter in dispute.

The Colvins asserted the property in dispute is a seventy-foot deep

timber and undergrowth strip of land between two properties, and such strip

is entirely within their northern border. Additionally, the Colvins asserted

the correct north boundary of the property line is shown in both the “1989”

and “2012” surveys. However, the Joneses contended the boundary between

the two properties is the “combination fence” or “old wire fence,” which is

located south of the property. The Joneses expressed verbal ownership of the

disputed property by instructing the Colvins on how to use the boundary. In

response, the Colvins placed “NO TRESPASSING” signs

along the surveyed property. When the Joneses continued to assert verbal

ownership over the disputed property, the Colvins erected larger “NO

TRESPASSING” signs and placed them along the surveyed property line.

On September 8, 2023, the Colvins filed suit against the Joneses to

judicially fix the boundary between the parties. Thereafter, the Joneses filed

for both permanent injunction and damages alleging that the Colvins

deprived them of their enjoyment of their property by placing large

harassing signs facing their property; placing a dead cow by the survey line;

installing orange construction fencing near the boundary; using high-

intensity lights to shine onto their property, including their backyard; and

operating loud power generators during dusk to dawn hours.

Following a bench trial, the district court concluded that the north

boundary of the Colvin tract and the south boundary of the Jones tract are

judicially fixed at the old combination fence. The court granted the

permanent injunction against the Colvins, ordering them to remove all signs,

posts, lights, and other flagging materials, and found Jesse Colvin liable to

the Joneses for damages in the amount of $7,500 each.

DISCUSSION

Assignment Error 1: Boundary Dispute

The Colvins contend the district court erred by fixing the boundary at

the old, downed fence, issuing a permanent injunction against them, and

awarding the Joneses $7,500 in damages. More specifically, the Colvins

argue that the Joneses could not bring a possessory action because they were

allegedly dispossessed in April 2022 when wooden stakes were placed on

the property. The Colvins further contend that the Joneses bore the burden of

proving the extent of their possession and, having failed to prove acquisitive
2

prescription, the boundary should instead be determined according to title.

Thus, the trial court erred by fixing the boundary at the “old downed fence.”

Three real actions to determine ownership or possession of

immovable property are the possessory action, the petitory action, and the

boundary action. A boundary action is a real action under the Code of Civil

Procedure that is distinct from a possessory and a petitory action. Hooper v.

Hero Lands Co., 15-0929 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/30/16), 216 So. 3d 965, writ

denied, 16-0971 (La. 9/16/16), 206 So. 3d 205. In this matter, the trial court

was not presented with a possessory action but a boundary action.

Under La. C.C. art. 784, “A boundary is the line of separation

between contiguous lands. A boundary marker is a natural or artificial object

that marks on the ground the line of separation of contiguous lands.” Article

785 of the Louisiana Civil Code provides: “The fixing of the boundary may

involve the determination of the line of separation between contiguous lands,

if it is uncertain or disputed; it may also involve the placement of markers on

the ground, if the markers were never placed, were wrongly placed, or no

longer to be seen.” Article 786 of the Louisiana Civil Code provides: “The

boundary may be fixed upon the demand of an owner or of one who

possesses as owner.”

The court shall determine the boundary based on the parties’

ownership. Pursuant to La. C.C. art. 786, if neither party proves ownership,

the boundary shall be fixed according to the limits established by possession.

According to La. C.C. art. 531, one claiming ownership of an immovable

against another who has had the immovable for one year after commencing

possession in good faith and with just title, or who has had the immovable

for ten years, shall prove that he has acquired ownership from a previous
3

owner or by acquisitive prescription. When the parties trace their titles to a

common author, preference shall be given to the more ancient title. La. C.C.

art. 793. When a party proves acquisitive prescription, the boundary shall be

fixed according to the limits established by prescription rather than titles.

Additionally, boundary location is a question of fact, and the determination

of its location by the trial court should not be reversed absent manifest error.

Bowman v. Blankenship, 34,558 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/4/01), 785 So.2d

134, writ denied, 01-1354 (La. 6/22/01), 794 So. 2d 794. The party claiming

acquisitive prescription bears the burden of proof. La. C.C. art. 794; Fabre

v. Manton, 21-1418 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/28/22), 343 So. 3d 821.

If a party and his ancestors in title possessed for 30 years without

interruption, within visible bounds, more land than their title called for, the

boundary shall be fixed along these bounds. La. C.C. art. 794. After

considering the evidence, including the testimony and exhibits of a surveyor

or the other expert appointed by the court or by a party, the court shall

render judgment fixing the boundary between the contiguous lands in

accordance with the ownership or possession of the parties. La. C.C.P. art.

3693.

In a boundary action or claim for acquisitive prescription, the

boundary’s location is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact,

and such determination should not be reversed on appeal in absence of

manifest error. Horaist v. Pratt, 21-00166 (La. 3/23/21), 312 So. 3d 1093;

Cumpton v. Dragon Ests., LLC, 55,784 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/21/24), 399 So. 3d

676.

In Marcello v. Jo-Blanche Corp., 2020-1113 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/4/21),

330 So. 3d 632, writ denied, 21-01666 (La. 1/19/22), 331 So. 3d 330, the
4

plaintiffs filed a boundary action concerning a drainage ditch that did not run

in a straight line along the property line. They argued that the boundary

should be fixed by acquisitive prescription on the down-the-bayou side of

the ditch, relying on title records and a 2020 Templeton survey, which is

consistent with a 1973 McGee survey. The defendant contended the

boundary should instead follow the up-the-bayou side of the ditch according

to a survey referenced in the defendant’s title. The trial court fixed the

boundary in accordance with the 2020 Templeton survey. On appeal, the

court held that the plaintiffs, as the parties claiming acquisitive prescription,

bore the burden of proving ownership through a previous owner or by actual

possession. Finding no manifest error in the trial court’s evaluation of the

evidence, the appellate court affirmed the boundary as established in the

2020 Templeton survey.

In Hebert v. Superior Rental Props., LLC, 23-1015 (La. App. 1 Cir.

9/25/24), 405 So. 3d 704, the plaintiffs, co-owners of undivided interests in

the property, sought to fix the boundary and obtain a permanent injunction,

presenting extensive testimony and exhibits, while the defendants offered

expert survey testimony and numerous documents and maps. The trial court

reviewed the property’s history dating back to 1807 and concluded that the

boundary could not be fixed by title because both parties’ titles were equally

ancient and defective. Relying on La. C.C. art. 792, the court instead

resolved the issue through acquisitive prescription and found that the

plaintiffs had continuously, publicly, and peaceably possessed the land for

more than thirty years. It accordingly set the boundary line, relying in part

on the defendants’ own survey, and granted a permanent injunction

preventing defendants from making substantial alterations. On appeal, the
5

court affirmed, finding no manifest error in the trial court’s reliance on

acquisitive prescription or in its placement of the boundary line.

In the instant case, Jerry L. Rugg completed the first survey of the

Colvin property on July 20, 1989 (the “1989 Survey”); James Michael Duty

completed the second survey on May 16, 2012 (the “2012 Survey”), which

labeled the “old wire fence (down)” south of the northern boundary of the

Colvin property. The boundary separating the Colvin Property from the

Joneses’ property has never been formally established; however, three

surveys of the Colvin property have been completed. Delta Land Surveying

(“DLS”) conducted the most recent survey, during which wooden stakes

were placed along the boundary at issue.

At trial, multiple witnesses testified about the disputed boundary

between the Jones and Colvin properties, using old surveys and remnants of

an aged “combination fence,” which suggested a longstanding but unclear

dividing line. During his testimony, Jesse Colvin (“Jesse”) stated the Jones

Property was vacant when he purchased the Colvin Property. He testified

there were remnants of an old fence near the northern boundary of his

property and the southern boundary of the Jones Property. Jesse

acknowledged that the survey conducted in 2012 referenced the “old fence

line.” Further, he stated that he had the property surveyed in 2022 because

he did not know the location of his property line. According to Jesse, the

steel posts placed on the property by his grandchildren were placed in

accordance with the 2022 survey. Jesse admitted that prior to the boundary

dispute, he had never visited the northern boundary of the property (the

disputed area), and he had never kept livestock or cut trees in that area. He

stated he relied on his grandchildren to re-stake survey markers.
6

Jim Gandy, a previous owner of the Colvin property, testified he

purchased the property in 1989, and he had the property surveyed because he

wanted to build a pond. According to Gandy, he left a buffer of trees on the

northern property line for privacy reasons.

James Michael Duty, a professional land surveyor, testified he

prepared a “retracement” of a downed fence on the property in 2012. He

stated the location of the downed combination fence in his survey was the

same as the one noted in the survey later conducted by Jerry Rugg. Duty

opined that the property “line of record” was north of the old fence shown

on the surveys, and property lines set forth in the 2012 survey matched the

public record.

Stacy Albritton testified he co-owned the property to the east of the

Jones Property. He stated the fence between the Colvin and Jones properties

is located along the pasture line south of the tree line. He also stated the

fence had been in the same location since his father purchased the property.

Albritton admitted that he hunted and walked along the property line.

Robert Bradford Jones (“Brad”) testified that he believed the old fence

was the boundary when he purchased the property, and he used the disputed

area for hunting. He admitted that he did not have a survey conducted, and

he did not know the exact property lines to the east or west of the property.

Nonetheless, he testified that Linville Fire Tower Road was the north

property line, and the old fence line was the south property line because the

property was already cleared to the south of it when he purchased it. Brad

also stated he had never seen Jesse in that location prior to 2023. According

to Brad, after tensions escalated in early 2023, Jesse began posting numerous

“no trespassing” signs; moved a dead cow near the line; erected large
7

insulting signs; and installed loud, bright lighting, which the Joneses argued

created a nuisance.

After considering the testimony and evidence, the trial court found

that title evidence could not resolve the disputed line and that the “old

downed fence” represented the limits established by possession. The court

also found Jesse’s actions were intentional; caused the Joneses fear, anxiety,

and loss of enjoyment of their backyard; and were unsupported by any

evidence that Brad had threatened or trespassed on the Colvin property.

Because this finding is factual and supported by the record, we cannot say

the trial court manifestly erred in fixing the boundary at the “old downed

fence.” As such, this assignment lacks merit.

Assignment Error 2: Permanent Injunction

In the second assignment of error, the Colvins argue that the trial

court erred when it issued a mandatory injunction ordering them to remove

all signs, posts, lights, and flagging materials and enjoined them from

placing any similar materials at the exact location. Although the Joneses

asserted the works constructed by the Colvins constituted a nuisance and

served no purpose other than to intimidate them and cause damage their

health, the Colvins claim the Joneses failed to present evidence of any

damages in the form of depreciation of land values, structural damage to the

immovable property, or injuries to persons pursuant to La. C.C. art. 667.

Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 3601, “[a]n injunction shall be issued in

cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise result to the

applicant[.]” Succession of Smith v. Portie, 2019-183 (La. App. 3 Cir.

12/30/19), 289 So. 3d 77, 80.

8

La. C.C. art. 667 states:

Although a proprietor may do with his estate whatever he
pleases, still, he cannot make any work on it, which may
deprive his neighbor of the liberty of enjoying his own, or
which may be the cause of any damage to him. However, if the
work he makes on his estate deprives his neighbor of enjoyment
or causes damage to him, he is answerable for damages only
upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable
care, should have known that his works would cause damage,
that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of
reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable
care[.]

La. C.C. art. 668 states:

Although one is not at liberty to make any work by which his
neighbor’s buildings may be damaged, yet everyone has the
liberty of doing on his own ground whatsoever he pleases,
although it should occasion some inconvenience to his
neighbor.

Thus, he who is not subject to any servitude originating from a
particular agreement in that respect may raise his house as high
as he pleases, although by such elevation he should darken the
lights of his neighbor’s house, because this act occasions only
an inconvenience, but not a real damage.

See also, Taylor v. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, 332 F. Supp. 3d

1039, 1054 (E.D. La. 2018).

If there is a substantial interference with the rights of a plaintiff to the

peaceful use of his premises and to such rest and quiet as may be expected in

such a neighborhood, and if the interference is not temporary but obviously

will continue unless prevented by judicial process, a right to injunctive relief

exists. Fos v. Thomassie, 26 So. 2d 402 (La. App. Orl. 1946). See

also, Diefenthal v. Longue Vue Mgmt. Corp., 561 So. 2d 44 (La. 1990).

Since plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, they must prove irreparable injury in

addition to the necessary showing of real damage under C.C. 667–669.

C.C.P. 3601; Salter v. B.W.S. Corp., Inc., 290 So. 2d 821 (La.1974); Hilliard

v. Shuff, 260 La. 384, 256 So. 2d 127 (1972).
9

In Rodrigue v. Copeland, 475 So. 2d 1071 (La. 1985), three residents

of a Jefferson Parish subdivision sought injunctive relief to stop the

defendants from operating an elaborate annual Christmas display that drew

overwhelming crowds into their neighborhood. The trial court granted only

limited relief, but on appeal, the court examined factors such as the

neighborhood’s character, the degree of intrusion, and the impact on

residents’ health and safety. The evidence showed that the display generated

heavy traffic, loud music, bright lights, and significant delays for nearby

homeowners despite law-enforcement efforts to reduce disruptions.

Considering these impacts, the Louisiana Supreme Court enjoined the

defendant from operating a display of such size and extravagance, prohibited

oversized illuminated figures, and required that any accompanying sound be

reduced so it could not be heard inside the nearest homes.

In Par. of E. Feliciana ex rel. E. Feliciana Par. Police Jury v. Guidry,

04-1197 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/10/05), 923 So. 2d 45, writ denied, 05-2288 (La.

3/10/06), 925 So. 2d 515 the parish sought a permanent injunction against a

commercial motocross track, alleging its operation violated nuisance and

noise ordinances. The trial court found, based on resident testimony and

noise readings, that the track substantially interfered with neighboring

property enjoyment. On appeal, the court applied La. C.C. arts. 667-669 and

concluded that although some inconveniences are expected, the persistent

noise reaching up to 85 decibels from morning until night created excessive

and intolerable intrusion in the rural area. The appellate court held that the

operation caused real damage and affirmed the injunction.

In the present matter, the record states that Jesse’s activities consisted

of the following:
10

(1) The installation of orange construction fencing near the
boundary at issue.
On April 11, 2023, Jesse installed a series of 8×12 “PRIVATE
PROPERTY NO TRESPASS” commercial signs along the full
length of the Joneses’ property line, claiming he did so because
he believed Albritton had threatened his wife.1 The trial court
found no evidence supporting Jesse’s claimed justification.

(2) The placement of a dead cow next to the survey line.
On May 4, 2023, Jesse placed one of his dead cows into the
wooded area near the Joneses. Jesse testified that he only
moved the cow to that location until he found a place to bury it.
However, Jesse further testified, not denying having told Brad,
“I was fucking with you with the dead cow,” a statement he
made on the June 19, 2023, recorded call.

(3) The placement of large harassing and “posted” signs facing
the Joneses’ property.
On May 20, 2023, Jesse erected three large signs each four feet
by sixteen feet and mounted on eight-foot poles just ten feet
from the northern boundary line facing the Joneses’ property.
Two fluorescent orange signs displayed “NO TRESPASSING
FROM NEIGHBORS” with poop-emoji symbols meant to
depict the Joneses as “shitty neighbors,” while a third sign
announced “J-ONE HOG FARM Coming Soon.” Jesse claimed
the signs were prompted by a “nasty letter” from Brad dated
April 14, 2023. The trial court reviewed the letter and found it
simply requested a truce between the parties.

(4) The shining of high-intensity lights onto the Jones property,
including into their backyard, and the operation of loud
power generators during the dusk hours.
On May 23, 2023, Jesse installed lights to illuminate the signs,
powering them with a generator that Brad testified caused his
whole house to vibrate. Jesse admitted he illuminated the signs
specifically to send a message to Brad to leave him alone.

The trial court also found that Jesse’s conduct, including erecting

harassing signs; placing a dead cow near the boundary; installing

construction fencing; and directing high-intensity lights and generator noise

toward the Joneses, was intentional, served no legitimate purpose, and

1
Stacy Albritton testified on behalf of the Joneses and co-owns the property east
of the Jones property. Jesse alleges Brad sent Albritton to his house to threaten his wife,
Ruby; however, he did not present any evidence to substantiate the claim.
11

substantially interfered with the Joneses’ quiet enjoyment of their property.

These actions constituted real damage and created irreparable injury

sufficient to justify injunctive relief under La. C.C.P. art. 3601 and La. C.C.

arts. 667-668. We find no manifest error regarding the court’s ruling.

Assignment of Error 3: Damages

In the final assignment of error, the Colvins argue that the Joneses’

alleged harms were mere inconveniences. They contend the Joneses suffered

no physical or property damage, were not prevented from using their yard,

and presented no medical proof of mental distress or financial loss. The

Colvins also argue they are entitled to an award of monetary damages “in an

amount to be determined either by this Court or by the trial court.”

In all civil cases, the appropriate standard for appellate review of

factual determinations is the manifest error standard. Hayes Fund for First

United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain,

LLC, 14-2592 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So. 3d 1110; see also Detraz v. Lee, 05-

1263, 950 So. 2d 557 (La. 1/17/07). To determine whether an activity or

work occasions real damage or mere inconvenience, a court is required to

assess the reasonableness of the conduct in light of the circumstances, which

analysis involves consideration of factors such as the character of the

neighborhood; the degree of the intrusion; and the effect of the activity on

the health and safety of the neighbors. Markerson v. Composite

Architectural Design Sys., LLC, 17-1252 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/10/18) 255 So.

3d 1065.

One claiming damages arising out of a condition constituting a

nuisance has the burden of proving that the condition constitutes a nuisance

and that damages resulted therefrom. Butler v. Baber, 529 So. 2d 374 (La.
12

1988). A landowner is responsible for damages to an aggrieved neighbor

upon a showing that: (1) he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care,

should have known that his works would cause damage; (2) that the damage

could have been prevented by reasonable care; and (3) that he failed to

exercise such reasonable care. Perniciaro v. Hamed, 20-62 (La. App. 5 Cir.

12/16/20), 309 So. 3d 813. The frequent disruption of the plaintiffs’ sleep,

combined with their worry, apprehension, stress, inconvenience, and loss of

enjoyment of their property, is sufficient to constitute serious and material

discomfort to persons of normal sensibilities in a normal state of health.

Badke v. USA Speedway, LLC, 49,060 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/14/14), 139 So. 3d

1117, writ denied, 14-1533 (La. 10/24/14), 151 So. 3d 606.

Here, this Court must defer to the trial court’s factual determinations

unless clearly wrong. Although the Colvins argued that the Joneses suffered

only minor inconveniences without physical, medical, or financial harm,

Louisiana jurisprudence recognizes that serious and material discomfort,

such as repeated sleep disruption, stress, worry, and loss of enjoyment of

property, can constitute real damage. Based on the evidence, the trial court

concluded that the Colvins’ construction activities created a nuisance

intended to harass and intimidate them, causing discomfort, loss of

enjoyment, and sleep disturbance, thereby justifying the $7,500 damages

award. We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of damages.

Likewise, based on this record, we see no error in the trial court’s failure to

award monetary damages to the Colvins.

13

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the trial court is

hereby AFFIRMED and all costs are to be paid by the Appellants, the

Colvins.

AFFIRMED.

14