HOOPER v. HERO LANDS COMPANY (2020)

Writ application denied.

I reluctantly concur. Hooper I was wrongly decided. The possessory action should have been heard and the contested property settled on that basis, not divided up among the entire subdivision to non-parties. That issue, however, is res judicata.

The description to fix the boundary line now before us does not inspire confidence. One of the calls is “the line between the property of Hooper and Hero”, which begs the question. I suppose one can assume that by describing the property of Hooper that the boundary at issue is thus determined from the other measurements.

In any event, while the claims for treble damages pursuant to LSA-R.S. 3:4278.1 fall, the claims for ordinary trespass remain. It would seem hard to miss a fence line, which raises an issue of whether the survey was done on the ground, but that issue must remain for trial.

Hughes, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.