## Facts

- Randy Lacombe purchased a tract of land adjacent to Saline Bayou and operated a hardware store in the area.
- After the State installed a water-control structure, portions of Lacombe’s tract became inundated by bayou waters.
- Before Lacombe’s purchase, four hunters—Shawn Daze, Brian Mabou, Marvin Carter, Jr., and William Smith—constructed duck blinds and placed a floating boathouse in the inundated area.
- After acquiring the property, Lacombe demanded that the hunters remove the blinds and boathouse; the hunters refused.
- Lacombe sued the hunters for trespass and sought removal of the structures, an injunction against future entry, and damages.
- The hunters asserted the area was a public, navigable waterway and that the submerged land belonged to the State; the State was added as a party because of that claim.
- Lacombe introduced deeds, surveys, official state maps, and GPS-based location evidence to show (1) he owned the land and (2) the blinds and boathouse were located within his titled boundaries.
- A state official testified that the structures were on Lacombe’s property and that the State did not claim ownership of the inundated portion.
- During the dispute, the hunters circulated flyers and posted signs stating that Lacombe was attacking local hunting and fishing rights; Lacombe claimed he lost business at his hardware store as a result.
- The trial court found the hunters trespassed, ordered removal of the structures, enjoined future entry onto Lacombe’s land, and awarded Lacombe $5,000 in damages against each hunter.
- Daze and Mabou appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court manifestly erred in finding that the duck blinds and floating boathouse were located on Lacombe’s privately owned property, rather than on state-owned water bottom associated with a navigable waterway.
2. Whether the evidence supported a trespass finding and injunctive relief requiring removal of the structures and barring future entry.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Lacombe $5,000 in damages against each appealing hunter.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit affirmed the judgment as to the appealing defendants.
- The court upheld the factual finding that Lacombe proved ownership and that the structures were located within his property boundaries, even though the area was inundated.
- The court affirmed the finding of trespass and the injunction ordering the hunters to remove the blinds and boathouse and prohibiting future entry onto Lacombe’s land.
- The court affirmed the $5,000 per-defendant damage award against Daze and Mabou.

## Legal Principles

- Ownership and the location of disputed improvements may be proved through title documents and competent location evidence such as surveys, official maps, and GPS-based proof; appellate review of such factual determinations is deferential under the manifest error standard.
- The fact that private land becomes inundated due to a state-installed water-control structure does not, by itself, transfer ownership of the submerged land to the State or convert it into public property.
- Maintaining structures or remaining on another’s immovable property without consent can constitute a continuing trespass, for which injunctive relief ordering removal and prohibiting reentry is an available remedy.
- Damage awards in trespass cases are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellate court will not disturb an award supported by the record and within the trial court’s allowable range.

## Conclusion

Lacombe v. Carter affirmed a trial court’s determination that hunters trespassed by keeping duck blinds and a floating boathouse on inundated land that remained within a private owner’s titled boundaries, rejecting the claim that flooding transformed the area into state-owned water bottom, and upholding both injunctive relief and $5,000 damages assessed against each appealing hunter.


Lacombe v. Carter, 975 So. 2d 687 (2008)