Articles Posted in Property Rights

Imagine, for a moment, you’re organizing a large-scale event with a long checklist of details to manage. Now imagine missing one tiny detail and having it cost you a whopping quarter-million dollars! That’s precisely the scenario that unfolded for Star Financial Services, Inc., a prominent ATM operator, in their dealings with Cardtronics, USA, Inc. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cardtronics.

Star Financial operates a vast network of ATMs across Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. They signed a contract with Cardtronics to handle the electronic transfer of funds associated with their ATMs to keep the wheels turning. The setup process for this arrangement required Star Financial to provide Cardtronics with specific account details. A system that worked smoothly until it didn’t.

In 2015, Star Financial submitted the setup forms for three new ATMs. However, they mistakenly provided an account number belonging to a third-party merchant instead of their Settlement Account. Realizing their mistake, they sent a correction the next day, but Cardtronics only corrected one of the three ATMs. This discrepancy led to $250,000 being directed to the wrong account.

We all cherish the idea of collecting vacation days, envisioning the blissful trips we’ll take in the future. But what if you find yourself resigning from your job with a surplus of accrued vacation days that you haven’t had the chance to use? 

David Bodenheimer had worked for Carrollton Pest Control and Termite Company (“Carrolton”) for twenty-three years when he signed to resign. He accrued 1.25 vacation days per month. When he resigned from Carrollton, Bodenheimer claimed he still had twelve accrued vacation days for that year and 6.25 days from the prior year, totaling 18.25 of accrued, unused vacation days. Upon his resignation, Carrollton only paid Bodenheimer for 3.25 of the 6.25 days he had accrued in the prior year. When his written demands for payment for his additional accrued vacation days proved futile, Bodenheimer filed a lawsuit against Carrollton for his unpaid vacation under La. R.S. 23:631 and 23:632. 

At trial, the only witnesses were Bodenheimer and the owner of Carrollton. Other evidence included Carrollton’s policy manual and Bodenheimer’s payroll record. Carrollton and its owner claimed employees such as Bodenheimer had to use all of their fifteen vacation days in a given calendar year. If not, they would lose the vacation days in the next calendar year. The trial court ruled in favor of Carrollton, finding Bodenheimer had read and understood the applicable policy regarding using vacation days. Bodenheimer subsequently appealed. 

The separation of property between spouses is a legally recognized process, allowing them to transfer assets. However, what happens when this separation is done with fraudulent intent? In the case of Kathryn and Paul Holland, creditors accused the couple of fraudulently dividing their assets to avoid payment. The creditors filed a motion to intervene in the divorce proceedings, alleging that the Hollands knew about pending civil lawsuits against them. Despite their objections, the trial court granted the motion filed by Ms. Holland, prompting the creditors to appeal the decision. The following post summarizes the appeal. 

DeRamus and David Hodge filed a sexual battery lawsuit against Paul Holland, who was married to Kathryn Holland. Hodge died before the matter was settled. The trial court awarded one hundred thousand dollars in damages to DeRamus and the Estate of David Hodge. Before the lawsuit’s completion, Holland pled guilty to sexual battery in a different lawsuit and was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. Mr. and Mrs. Holland separated during this time and sought to divide their assets with a separation of property agreement. Ms. Holland filed for divorce based on Mr. Holland’s felony conviction. Her petition was granted.  

The creditors filed a Motion to Intervene in the divorce proceedings in which they alleged the Hollands knew of the civil lawsuits against them and sold their assets to avoid payment. Ms. Holland filed a motion arguing there was no cause of action. The trial court granted her motion, which prompted an appeal from the creditors. 

We have all heard that “good fences make good neighbors.”  But what happens when there is a dispute about the boundary of two pieces of property? The following conflict between New Fellowship Baptist Church and the Beals, who found themselves at odds over the boundary of their adjoining properties, helps answer this question. The dispute raises questions about the concept of acquisitive prescription, the importance of possession, and the determination of boundaries. By carefully examining the trial and appellate court’s rulings, we gain insights into the legal principles and the significance of seeking professional advice in property-related conflicts.

New Fellowship Baptist Church, located in Delhi, Louisiana, was established in 1919. Florenda and Kathy Beals purchased property located adjacent to the church. The Beals sent the church a notice of trespass warning and told the church it needed to remove its structures and other movable items on its property. 

Under La. C.C. art. 3486, a person can acquire property, even without title or possession in good faith, by prescription of 30 years.  At trial, multiple witnesses had testified that New Fellowship had had a choir stand in the location for at least 30 years. Other witnesses testified about maintenance services the church had provided and New Fellowship’s indoor plumbing. The trial court ruled in favor of New Fellowship and dismissed the Beals’ trespass claims. 

Safeguarding your property rights is of utmost importance, as the consequences of inadequate protection can be far-reaching. While oil and gas rights disputes may not directly affect the average citizen, other property-related conflicts can significantly impact individuals and their assets. In such complex situations, navigating the intricacies of property laws requires the expertise of an experienced attorney who can empower you with a clear understanding of your rights, ensure the legal protections you are entitled to, and advocate on your behalf. The following lawsuit shows the importance of expert counsel in understanding your property rights. 

In 2011, a dispute arose over a large drilling unit’s oil and gas rights. Chesapeake Operating (“Chesapeake”) was the unit’s appointed operator and a lessee of mineral interests for a portion of the unit. TDX Energy (“TDX”) was also a lessee for a part of the unit. The unit’s drilling began in February 2011 and ended in July 2011. TDX’s leases to its oil and gas interests had not been recorded until after the drilling had been completed in September 2011. 

Later in 2011, TDX made Chesapeake aware of its leases and requested accounting reports, as required under Louisiana’s Title 30, section 103.1. After six weeks, having yet to receive a response, TDX again notified Chesapeake of how it had failed to comply with the law. Chesapeake eventually responded with a letter to TDX, requesting TDX decide whether it would participate in the unit well’s risk under section 10(A) of the statute. TDX responded by disagreeing, stating it was not required by law to opt-in or out and that Chesapeake did not provide the accounting reports; it forfeited its rights to contribution to drilling costs.

Experiencing termination from your job is a difficult situation, especially when it feels unjust. Scott Poiencot faced this unfortunate circumstance when he was terminated from his position as a police officer in the Lafayette Police Department, where he had served for several years. As a civil service employee, Louisiana law provided a specific procedure for appealing his termination. This case sheds light on employees’ challenges in challenging an unfair termination. In addition, it emphasizes the importance of seeking legal guidance to understand their rights and navigate the appeals process.

Before his termination, Scott Poiencot had been involved in three different Internal Affairs investigations. The first investigation (AD2012-007) involved a confidential document being removed from a police file and eventually released to the media. It was discovered that a Lieutenant in the police department had removed the document initially and whited out some information before providing it to Poeincot.  The second investigation (AD2012-010) involved Poiencot secretly recording a phone conversation involving a Major in the police department. Poiencot eventually admitted to downloading the conversation, which was released to the media. The third investigation (AD2012-012) involved Poiencot’s refusal to submit to a polygraph as part of the first investigation related to releasing a confidential document. His termination letter referenced all three prior investigations with which he was involved. 

After his termination, Poiencot appealed to the Lafayette Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board (the “Board”). The Board voted 5-0 to uphold his termination, finding it was made for cause and in good faith. The Board then issued a final judgment. 

Parties in conflict often prefer out-of-court dispute resolution. Although these agreements made outside the courtroom are appealing, they come with their slew of issues and may require a courtroom to enforce an out-of-court solution. When a deal outside the courtroom requires a court to intervene, how does that court decide whether to enforce the settlement agreement? And in the era of virtual communication and remote dispute resolution, how can a court decide when virtually made agreements are enforceable and binding on the parties?

The present case emerged out of a lumber dispute. In short, the defendants wrongfully cut down trees on the plaintiffs’ land. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the numerous defendants for this wrongful timber cutting and the resulting property damage, penalties, interest, costs, and attorney fees. Some defendants also brought crossclaims against each other following the plaintiffs’ complaints. 

The trial court conducted a conference where the parties discussed a potential settlement. Ultimately, the parties drafted an agreement in which one defendant, J.R. Logging, would pay the plaintiffs $20,000. In turn, the plaintiff’s claims against J.R. Logging and the other defendant, Fair Hills Farms, would be dismissed along with the crossclaims between defendants. 

If an individual is unable to care for themself or manage their financial or business affairs, legal intervention in the form of interdiction may be appropriate. If a court finds interdiction to be warranted, it may assign another person to make decisions for the disabled. The following case demonstrates when a court may deny an interdiction assertion. 

John Dupuis filed a petition for interdiction in Acadia Parish, asserting that his mother, Linda Dupuis, was incapable of being employed, driving, balancing her checkbook, or paying her bills. In his petition, John also noted that his father, Kenneth Dupuis, had recently passed away, that Kenneth had always taken care of Linda, and that John should be appointed curator of Linda. Although Linda filed a motion denying John’s allegations, she also sought the appointment of her daughter, June Dupuis, as curator if the court found interdiction appropriate. John then responded with additional grounds for interdiction: that Linda had mental illness and epilepsy.

The 15th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Acadia then appointed Dr. Eddie Johnson as an examiner to provide his opinion on whether Linda suffered from the infirmities alleged by John, the appropriateness of the interdiction, and if a less restrictive means of intervention was available. Dr. Johnson indicated in his report that Linda showed no signs of cognitive impairment, could make competent major life decisions and that interdiction would not be necessary.