Steve Crooks, Et Ux. v. State of La., Department of Natural Resources

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-920

STEVE CROOKS, ET UX.

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 224,262
HONORABLE HARRY FRED RANDOW, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

OSWALD A. DECUIR
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, James T. Genovese, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

James J. Davidson III
Christopher J. Piasecki
Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier, McElligott,
Fontenot, Gideon & Edwards
P. O. Drawer 2908
Lafayette, LA 70502-2908
(337) 237-1660
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants:
Steve Crooks
Era Lea Crooks

V. Russell Purvis
Smith, Taliaferro & Purvis
P. O. Box 298
Jonesville, LA 71343
(337) 339-8526
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants:
Steve Crooks
Era Lea Crooks

J. Michael Veron
Alonzo P. Wilson
J. Rock Palermo
Veron, Bice, Palermo & Wilson, LLC
P.O. Box 2125
Lake Charles, LA 70602-2125
(337) 310-1600
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants:
Steve Crooks
Era Lea Crooks

Robert G. Nida
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell
P. O. Box 6118
Alexandria, LA 71307-6118
(318) 445-6471
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants:
Steve Crooks
Era Lea Crooks

Albin A. Provosty
Provosty, Sadler, deLaunay, Fiorenza & Sobel
P. O. Drawer 1791
Alexandria, LA 71309-1791
(318) 445-3631
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
State of Louisiana, Department of Natural Resources

DECUIR, Judge.

This class action lawsuit was filed by the named plaintiffs, Steve and Era

Crooks, against the State of Louisiana, Department of Natural Resources, seeking a

determination of the ownership of the lands located in the Catahoula Basin,

commonly referred to as Catahoula Lake. The determinative issue in the case is

the legal classification of Catahoula Lake as a lake or as a river or stream. The

trial court granted the State’s motion for partial summary judgment on this issue

and rendered the following oral ruling:

For oral reasons this day handed down, the Court finds that
partial summary judgment is appropriate as to the issue of
classification of the body of water referred to as Catahoula Lake. This
is a class action suit. Plaintiffs seek to have all lands above the
ordinary low water mark of Little River or its tributaries, and within
the area known as Catahoula Lake to be declared owned by the class
in accordance with Louisiana’s laws of riparian ownership.
Defendant argues that the Third Circuit Court of Appeal made a legal
determination in Sanders v. State, Department of Natural Resources,
2007-821 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/19/07), 973 So.2d 879, that the water
body at issue in this case is, as a matter of law, a lake as defined under
the Louisiana Civil Code. Accordingly, the defendant presents to the
court that it is the law of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals [sic] that
the body of water at issue is classified as a lake.

In opposition, the plaintiffs assert that the defendant is in effect
arguing res judicata, which prevents relitigation of the same issue
between the same parties; however, the court need not rely on the
doctrine of res judicata. In McCormick Oil & Gas Corporation v.
Dow Chemical Company, 489 So.2d 1047 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1986),
citing State v. Placid Oil Co., 300 So.2d 154 (La. 1974), the First
Circuit Court of Appeal held that the determination that a body of
water is a lake as opposed to a stream is a legal finding. The court
finds that the classification of Catahoula Lake is a legal issue. In
Sanders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals [sic] made the
determination that the body of water commonly referred to as
Catahoula Lake is legally classified as a lake. Sanders, 973 So.2d at
882. This court being bound to follow its immediate supervisory
court on matters of law grants the partial motion for summary
judgment.

In this appeal, Plaintiffs contend summary judgment was improper because

the Sanders decision is not a valid basis for determining the ownership interests of

the plaintiffs in the instant case. They argue that the Sanders court did not

consider the legal characterization of the Catahoula water body as a lake or a river.

Rather, the appellate court simply stated that all parties agreed it is a lake; therefore,

it is a lake.

The Sanders decision does indeed address the essential characteristics of

Catahoula Lake. The court explores its historical designation in official documents

and states that it was navigable in 1812 when Louisiana acquired ownership of the

beds of its natural navigable water bodies up to their high water marks. The court

also discusses the size of Catahoula Lake, its channel, and tributaries. It discusses

whether the lake is intermittent versus perennial. The Sanders court reviewed

numerous surveys, studies, observational accounts, and government documents

which describe Catahoula Lake, and the court compared it to the body of water

legally characterized as a lake in State v. Placid Oil Co., 300 So.2d 154 (La.1973).

Nevertheless, in Sanders, the fundamental question of whether Catahoula

Lake is a lake or a river was not in dispute. It was not an adjudicated issue; rather,

the trial court made a finding that the water body was a lake, but the only disputed

question on appeal was the correct level of the high water mark. In fact, the author

of the Sanders opinion wrote, “No one disputes the trial court’s finding that

Catahoula Lake is a lake . . . .” Sanders, 973 So.2d at 882.

Courts in Louisiana have the authority to revisit previous determinations of

law, and we believe the trial court in the instant case made an incorrect decision to

follow the Sanders pronouncement in a summary judgment proceeding. The legal

characterization of real property determines ownership thereof, and the myriad of

consequences that flow therefrom. The experts hired by the plaintiffs in this case

have concluded Catahoula Lake is not a lake; the State’s experts say that it is a lake.

Both sides have evidence to produce at trial on the merits. We find the parties

2

have presented a genuine issue of material fact; therefore, summary judgment must

be denied.

In McCormick Oil & Gas Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co., 489 So.2d 1047

(La.App. 1 Cir. 1986), the first circuit followed a decision of the supreme court

which delineated Grand Lake as a lake. The McCormick court declined to revisit

the question of whether Grand Lake was a lake or a river, deciding instead that the

issue was previously resolved. In this case, we decline to follow a decision in

which the relevant issue was not adjudicated.

For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is

reversed. This matter is remanded for trial on the merits. The assessment of costs

will await the final outcome of this hotly contested matter.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

3