## Facts

- A developer recorded residential subdivision building restrictions, including limits on commercial activity and a prohibition on keeping, storing, repairing, or maintaining commercial trucks on lots in a manner detracting from the subdivision’s appearance.
- Related adjoining “Front Lots” were later subjected to a recorded agreement applying the same restrictions (except for setbacks).
- Henry and Joyce Holcomb bought a Front Lot, built a residence, and later used an outbuilding in connection with a trucking business.
- The Holcombs obtained a written agreement from the developer purporting to allow commercial operations on their lot.
- Neighboring lot owners later observed multiple commercial trucks entering the Holcombs’ property and being stored, washed, and maintained there, with associated noise and activity.
- The neighbors asserted they did not observe a restriction violation until spring 2001 and filed suit in 2002 seeking a permanent injunction to enforce the restrictions.

## Issues

1. Whether the action to enforce the building restrictions was barred by the two-year prescriptive period under Louisiana Civil Code article 781 because the alleged violation had been “noticeable” for more than two years before suit.
2. Whether the court of appeal improperly reversed the trial court’s fact finding on when the violation became “noticeable” under the manifest error standard of review.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.
- The Court held the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in finding the violations were not “noticeable” until 2001, making the 2002 suit timely under Civil Code article 781.
- The permanent injunction enforcing the restrictions against the trucking-related use of the property remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Under Louisiana Civil Code article 781, a building restriction may be extinguished as to a particular property when a violation has been “noticeable” for more than two years; the prescriptive period begins when the violation becomes sufficiently observable to be reasonably detected.
- Determining when a violation became “noticeable” is a factual question reviewed under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard; an appellate court may not reweigh evidence and substitute its own findings when the trial court’s view is reasonable on the record.
- Evidence that a property is associated with a business (e.g., an outbuilding or general activity) does not necessarily establish a “noticeable” violation of a specific restriction; the operative question is when the prohibited condition becomes objectively observable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of the subdivision restrictions because the trial court reasonably found the prohibited commercial-truck activity did not become “noticeable” until 2001, so the neighbors’ 2002 injunction action was not prescribed under Louisiana Civil Code article 781.


Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc., 942 So. 2d 471 (La. 2006)