# Appendix — Bayou des Familles Development Corp. v. West Jefferson Levee District

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386012_0841%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1995
- **Citation:** 513 U.S. 1083

## Text

\3) fr A&M SB YY a
“94 900 NOV 1 01994

NO.
oN i

In the |
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1994

BAYOU DES FAMILLES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
COAST QUALITY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
and BETTY JANE PERRIN, WIFE OF/AND
RONALD J. ISAAC,

Petitioners
V.
WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT,
Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

APPENDIX VOLUME II
Appendix B-F

David C. Loeb

Counsel of Record
Harold E. Molaison
Daniel E. Zelenka, II
Jack E. Morris
Molaison, Price & Loeb, L.L.P.
230 Huey P. Long Avenue
Gretna, Louisiana 70053
Telephone: (504) 366-4336
Telecopy: (504) 368-6531

Counsel for Petitioners

ATO ANE SO ES COTTIER
was finally decided, the land uses available to the Lan-
downers for their property were determined. Therefore, the
Court finds as a fact that the event which constitutes the
taking of the Property, and which determined its ultimate
value, was the expropriation of the right-of-way for the
West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee by the West Jeffer-
son Levee District.

The main premise of the West Jefferson Levee
District’s position is that even though the Landowners
may have been damaged, it is the United States govern-
ment through the United States Army Corps of Engineers
that caused that damage, and the West Jefferson Levee
District is not responsible for the devaluation caused by
the Corps. In order for the West Jefferson Levee District
to prevail on this issue, the Court would have to find that
the devaluation of the Landowners’ property was unrelated
to the proposed improvement for which a portion of the
Property was expropriated. However, the Court finds as a
fact that the levee alignment selection process was a con-
tinuous project beginning in the late 1960’s and ending

A-152

only when the West Jefferson Levee District finally acted
upon the permit issued for levee alignment alternative
modified E (Alternate E). The West Jefferson Levee
District argues that, when it accepted and acted on that
permit, there were no other alternatives available, and that
the decision about where the levee would be built had been
determined before that event. The historical record does
not support the West Jefferson Levee District’s argument,
and the Court finds as a fact that prior to the decision of
the West Jefferson Levee District to accept and act upon
the permit for Alternate E, no final determination for the
location of the West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee had
been made. The court also finds as a fact that it was the
location of the West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee in
those reaches affecting the Property which determined the
land uses available for the Property.

The Property was originally acquired by Bayou des
Familles Development Corporation* on August 21, 1972 as
part of a larger tract of ground. Several parcels of that
larger tract were sold to others, including Coast Quality
Construction Corporation® and Betty Jane Perrin, wife
of/and Ronald J. Isaac®, both of whom were insiders of
Bayou des Familles, and both purchased approximately
101 acre tracts from Bayou des Familles within days of
Bayou des Familles’ acquisition of the larger parcel. As
part of the agreement among these parties, Bayou des
Familles was to provide the necessary levees, drainage

4 hereafter referred to as Bayou des Familles
5 hereafter referred to as Coast
6 hereafter referred to as Isaac

A-153

facilities, sewerage treatment plant, potable water lines,
and master plan to put the Property into commerce. When
it later became necessary to obtain 404 and § 10 permits,
it became Bayou des Familles’ responsibility to seek these
permits for the benefit of itself and for the benefit of Coast
and Isaac. Bayou des Familles in fact completed the
drainage facilities, the sewerage treatment plant and the
potable water lines which were eventually dedicated to the
Parish. The levee system was 90% complete when work on
the levee was stopped on January 15, 1974 by a cease and
desist order issued by the Corps pursuant to §404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972.

The Court finds as a fact that, at the time the Lan-
downers acquired the Property, they had a reasonable in-
vestment backed expectation that they would be allowed to
develop the Property in a fashion consistent with the
master plan prepared by VTN Corp. because:

1) The type of soil which makes up the pro-
perty is of a better quality than that found
in many already successfully developed
areas of Greater New Orleans, and par-
ticularly of Jefferson Parish;

2) The elevation of the property is high com-
pared to other developed areas;

3) The property lies within traditional
growth corridors;

4) The Corps of Engineers’ proposed levee
alignment in 1972 included the property
within the protected area;

A-154

5) Jefferson Parish approved construction of
a hurricane protection levee by Bayou des
Familles along the Corps’ 1972 alignment
with minor modification;

6) The Corps and HUD approved the Bayou
des Familles levee and authorized a reduc-
tion in the Base Flood Elevation upon
completion;

7) At the time the Landowners purchased the
property no 404 or §10 permit was re-
quired for its development; and

8) These landowners included some of the
most experienced, capable and successful
real estate developers in the metropolitan
area.

After the cease and desist order was issued, Bayou
des Familles, pursuant to a consent judgment with the
federal government, made application for after-the-fact 404
and §10 permits. By December 10, 1975, the Corps of
Engineers was ready to act on that permit application. The
Court finds as a fact that the only reason the Corps did not
issue those permits to Bayou des Familles in late 1975 or
early 1976 was the uncertainty over the location of the
West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee, which is the
Project’ for which the Property has been expropriated.

The Corps finally acted on the Bayou des Familles
404 and $10 permits on September 21, 1979, and denied

7 the West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee is sometimes referred to
herein as the Project

A-155

those permits. However, the denial of those permits did not
finally determine the land uses available for the Property,
because the denial of a particular permit does not preclude
the issuance of that same permit at a later time. This is
evidenced by the fact that almost immediately after the
Bayou des Familles permit was denied, the Parish applied
for an almost identical permit. Indeed, prior to the denial
of the Bayou des Familles permit, the Corps proposed
several alternate alignments for the West Bank Hurricane
Protection Levee, half of which followed the Bayou des
Familles levee in those reaches affecting the Property. As
a result of the Parish’s permit application, the Corps
published a draft Environmental Impact Statement in
1984, which proposed seven (7) alternate alignments, and,
again in those reaches affecting the Property, three of the
alternates followed the Bayou des Familles levee. The
evidence shows that in those reaches affecting the Proper-
ty, only two locations were ever considered for the West
Bank Hurricane Protection Levee; the alignment along
which Bayou des Familles actually built its levee; and the
alignment along which the West Jefferson levee District is
currently building its levee.

The Court finds as a fact that the construction of the
West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee along the Bayou
des Familles alignment would have allowed the Property to
be developed as described in the VTN Master Plan, that is,
primarily for the purpose of single family subdivisions. The
Court also finds as a fact that the construction of the West
Bank Hurricane Protection Levee along Alternate E
precludes the development of the Property for any commer-
cially viable purpose whatsoever. And the Court finds as a
fact that the construction of the West Bank Hurricane Pro-

A-156

tection Levee along either of the two possible alignments in
the reaches affecting the Property, precludes the possibili-
ty of a levee being built along the other alignment.

Two events occurred in the late 1970’s and early
1980’s which significantly influenced the selection of the
levee alignment. One was the creation of the Jean Lafitte
National Historical Park,’ and the other was the adoption
of the Jefferson Parish Coastal Zone Management Plan
which adopted the concept that the West Bank Hurricane
Protection Levee would form the growth/no growth line for
the West Bank of Jefferson Parish. On one side of the issue
was the conservationists who urged the adoption of Alter-
nate E for the express purpose of keeping the Property (and
presumable other land as well) out of commerce, and preser-
ving it in its natural state for inclusion into the Park. On
the other side of the issue were the Parish, who opposed
Alternate E because of the excessive right-of-way costs im-
posed by that alignment, and the various property owners,
including the Landowners, who opposed Alternate E
because it took their properties out of commerce. The
Parish and the Landowners urged the Corps to issue a per-
mit for Alternate Alignment D, which in the reaches affec-
ting the Property closely followed the original Bayou des
Familles levee, because the right-of-way would have been
donated, and the Property on the protected side of the levee
would have been developable.

On June 18, 1984 the Corps denied the Parish’s re-
quest for a permit along Alignment D and instead offered
a permit for Alternate E. As of that date, all of the parties

8 The Jean Lafitte Natioinal Historical Park is sometimes referred to as
the Park

A-157

involved in the levee alignment selection process, including
the Corps, the Parish and the West Jefferson Levee
District, understood that the cost of the right-of-way along
Alternate E was prohibitively expensive, making it im-
possible for local government to proceed with the Project.
Progress on the Project therefore came to a halt, which
lasted for approximately fifteen (15) months.

In the fall of 1985, a solution to the dilemma began
to emerge, which included the federal government paying
65% of the cost of this Project. Federal funding had been
proposed at least as early as 1978, and the effort to obtain
those funds resulted in the adoption of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986. The Parish of Jeffer-
son assigned its interest in the permit to the West Jeffer-
son Levee District, and in February, 1986, the permit for
Alternate E was accepted by and issued to the West Jeffer-
son Levee District. Even before that event, in the fall of
1985, the Corps began a fast track study of the West Bank
Hurricane Protection Levee for purposes of federal fun-
ding. The feasibility report and final Environment Impact
Statement resulting from that study was issued in
December, 1986, and on April 20, 1987, the Corps approved
the Project for funding. In late 1987, the West Jefferson
Levee District authorized its appraisers to value the Pro-
perty, and in mid-1988, the West Jefferson Levee District
made its demand on the Landowners for the right-of-way
for Alternate E. The Landowners rejected the offer by the
West Jefferson Levee District, and these expropriation
suits were filed beginning in February, 1989.

Therefore, the Court finds as a fact that the denial of
the Bayou des Familles 404 and §10 permits, the selection

A-158

of Alternate E, and the expropriation of the right-of-way
for the West Bank Hurricane protection Levee in these pro-
ceedings, are all part of the same Project.

LIABILITY OF THE WEST JEFFERSON
LEVEE DISTRICT

The West Jefferson Levee District argues that
because the only permit offered to it for the Project was for
Alternate E, it is not responsible for the Landowners’
losses. While it is true that the Corps had rejected the BDF
permit application, and the Parish’s permit application, the
Court finds as a fact that these actions did not determine
the location of the West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee,
and that the determination of that location was made by
the assignment to the West Jefferson Levee District of the
Parish’s interests in the permit and by its acceptance of,
and action upon the permit for Alternate E. Part of acting
upon that permit was the filing of these expropriation suits
and therefore, the Court finds that the West Jefferson
Levee District is the taking authority liable to the
Landowners.

The position taken in these cases with regard to the
West Jefferson Levee District’s liability for the act of the
Corps is contrary to the position taken by the Levee
District on this same issue in a companion case. West Jef-
ferson Levee District v. Mayronne, So.2d (La.

App. 5th Cir. 1992), (No. 91-CA-87, decided January 31,
1992), 1992 WL 21068 (La.App. 5th Cir.) In Mayronne, the
West Jefferson Levee District stipulated that it was liable
for the actions of the Corps. While the West Jefferson
Levee District is not bound by that stipulation in these

A-159

cases, this Court finds as a fact that the stipulation in
Mayronne is consistent with the Local Cooperation Agree-
ment between the West Jefferson Levee District and the
Corps, and the position of the West Jefferson Levee
District in these cases is not. After reviewing the Local
Cooperation Agreement and considering the testimony of
Mr. Mike Rolland, attorney for the Corps, this Court finds
as a fact that it was the intent of the Corps and the West
Jefferson Levee District that the Local Cooperation agree-
ment apply to the claims of these Landowners. What
jurisprudence exists on this issue also holds that the local
assuring agency is primarily liable to the property owner,
subject to a credit or reimbursement from the federal agen-
cy. Succession of Rovira v. Board of Commissioners of the
Port of New Orleans, 418 So.2d 1382 (La. App. 4th Cir.
1982) writ denied 423 So.2d 1147 (La. 1983); Singleton
Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. City of Pueblo, et al 727
F.Supp. 579 (U.S.D.C. D. Col. 1989).

Therefore, this Court holds that the West Jefferson
Levee District is the party responsible to the Landowners
for the awards made in these case.

VALUATION

To properly value the Property, this Court must
determine whether the property values were already
destroyed at the time of taking for reasons unrelated to the
Project, as the West Jefferson Levee District suggests, or
whether that devaluation was caused by the Project as the
Landowners suggest. The history of this Project described
above makes it clear, and this Court finds, that the
loss of value suffered by the Property was caused by

A-160

the proposed improvement for which portions of the Pro-
perty have been expropriated. Therefore, this Court feels
that LSA-R.S. 38:387 requires that just compensation in
these cases be calculated under the assumption that there
was no legal impediment to the development of the
Property.

The experts on valuation presented by the parties
premised their opinions on completely different assump-
tions. On the one hand, the West Jefferson Levee District's
appraisers, Mr. Peter Talluto and Mr. Irvington Eppling,
both valued the property as if it were undevelopable,
wetlands. The appraisers for the Landowners, Mr. William
Hartwell, Mr. Richard Brewster and Dr. Wade Ragas, bas-
ed their calculations of value on the opinions of Dr. Sher-
wood Gagliano and Mr. Joseph Krebs, who believed that
but for the Project, the Property would have been
developed pursuant to the Master Plan.

As described above, this Court agrees with the opi-
nions of Dr. Gagliano and Mr. Krebs. The court finds that
the highest and best use of the Property as of the date of
the takings was for the development of single family
subdivisions.

The only calculations of just compensation presented
to the Court using the correct assumptions are those done
by Mr. Hartwell, Mr. Brewster and Dr. Ragas. The West
Jefferson Levee District made no attempt to challenge the
validity of these calculations other than to challenge the
correctness of the underlying assumptions. This Court has
determined that these assumptions are correct, and
therefore, the Property values determined by the Land-

A-161

owners’ experts is unrebutted. The Court does note that
Mr. Talluto and Mr. Eppling did appraise those portions of
the Property that did not require 404 and §10 permits at a
higher value than did either Mr. Hartwell or Mr. Brewster.
The Court finds as a fact that the only difference between
the portions of the Property requiring 404 and §10 permits,
and those portions of the Property not requiring those per-
mits, is the requirement for those permits. Therefore, the
Court finds as a fact that if Mr. Talluto and Mr. Eppling
had used the same assumptions as Mr. Hartwell and Mr.
Brewster, their opinions of value would not have differed
from Mr. Hartwell and Mr. Brewster.

However, Mr. Brewster and Mr. Hartwell did
disagree over the applicability of the concept of plottage.
The concept requires that all contiguous property under
single ownership be valued as one parcel. In the case of the
Property owned by Bayou des Familles, applying this con-
cept yielded lower values per acre. Because the Property
was actually divided into parcels, because Bayou des
Familles had a proven history of selling off portions of the
Property, and because Louisiana Constitution Article 1, $4
and LSA-R.S. 38:387(C) require just compensation to the
full extent of the loss, the Court finds as a fact that the
values calculated by Mr. Hartwell are correct. For the por-
tions of the Property taken or to be taken for the right-of-
way for the Project, the Court has made the following
awards:

Bayou des Familles Development
Corporation $2,849,000.00

Coast Quality Construction
Corporation 1,480,000.00

A-162

Betty Jane Perrin, wife of/and
Ronald J. Isaac 975,000.00

SEVERANCE DAMAGES

As a result of the improvements for which portions
of the Property have been expropriated, those portions of
the Property on the unprotected side of the levee have suf-
fered severance damages. The Court finds that if the Pro-
ject had not been built in its current location, Alternate E,
it would have been built (and was in fact 90% complete)
along the Bayou des Familles levee. The Court also finds as
a fact that without government intervention, Bayou des
Familles would have completed its own levee and the Pro-
perty would have been developed.

Just compensation requires that in addition to pay-
ment for the property actually taken, a property owner is
also entitled to recover damages suffered to the remainder
of his property. State DOTD v. Regard, 467 So.2d 1174 (La.
App. 3d. Cir. 1991); State DOTD v. Caroline Atkins
Crawford Business Trusts, 538 So.2d 1078 (La. App. 3d
Cir. 1989) writ denied 542 So.2d 138 (La. 1989); Board of
Levee Commissioners v. Bostick, 464 So.2d 954 (La. App.
4th Cir. 1985).

Before the taking, the Property had substantial
value ranging from a low of $16,000.00 per acre to a high
of $24,000.00 per acre depending on the parcel. After the
taking, the value is greatly diminished, having a nominal
value of no more than $500 per acre. Again, the Court ac-
cepts Mr. Hartwell’s values as correct, and makes the
following awards for severance damages:

A-163

Bayou des Familles Develop-
ment Corporation $14,478,000.00

Coast Quality Construction
Corporation 703,000.00

Betty Jane Perrin, wife of/and
Ronald J. Isaac 1,194,000.00

The West Jefferson Levee District has argued that
the placement of the Project along Alternate E does not
preclude the Landowners from seeking permits for a levee
along their original alignment. The Court rejects this posi-
tion because the Coastal Zone Management Plan for Jeffer-
son Parish establishes the alignment of the West Bank
Hurricane Protection Levee as the line of demarkation bet-
ween those areas which may be developed, and those which
may not. Furthermore, the Court finds as a fact that the ex-
istence of the West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee along
Alternate E creates such practical barriers to the future
development of the Property on the unprotected side of the
Project, that the severance damages to that portion of the
Property on the unprotected side is most of that property’s
before taking value. Board of Levee Commissioners uv.
Bostick, supra. Therefore, the Court finds that the con-
struction of the Project along Alternate E precludes the
construction of a levee along the original Bayou des
Familles alignment, and hampers the future developability
of that portion of the property on the unprotected side of
the Project.

DELAY DAMAGES

Upon a proper showing, a property owner is entitled

A-164

to recover delay damages as part of the just compensation.
State DOTD v. Chambers Investment Co., 576 So.2d 1174
(La. App. 3rd Cir. 1991); State DOTD v. Maynard, 565
So.2d 532 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1990) writ denied 568 So.2d
1079 (La. 1990); reversed on other grounds State DOTD v.
Estate of Davis, infra, State DOTD v. Brookhollow of Alex-
andria, 578 So.2d 558 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1991), writ denied
581 So.2d 709 (La. 1991).

As discussed above, the levee alignment selection
process has been long and controversial. Even as early as
1982, Judge Cassibry found that these Landowners had
suffered an unreasonable delay. Bayou des Familles
Development Corp. v. Corps of Engineers and Department
of Interior, 541 F.Supp. 1025 (USDC E.D. of La. 1982), af-
firmed 709 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1983) writ denied 465 U.S.
1065 (1984). This Court also finds as a fact that the Lan-
downers have suffered a substantial delay, and that they
are entitled to damages for that delay. While there are a
number of dates from which those damages can be
calculated, because the Landowners have only prayed for
delay damages from September 21, 197 9, and because this
is the latest date from which to calculate those damages,
this Court will award delay damages from that date.

In order to calculate delay damages, the Court must
apply an appropriate rate. The Landowners have offered
evidence to the Court that the appropriate rate is 10% per
year calculated on the value of the Property as of the date
the delay began. The Court finds this method, as suggested
by Dr. Ragas, reasonable and appropriate.

Therefore, the Court awards the following amounts

A-165
as delay damages.

Bayou des Familles Develop-
ment Corporation $15,642,664.00

Coast Quality Construction
Corporation 1,685,935.00

Betty Jane Perrin, wife of/and
Ronald J. Isaac ; 1,654,145.00

COSTS

This Court has the authority to award the Lan-
downers the costs, including expert witness fees, incurred
in this litigation. State DOTD v. Fakouri, 541 So.2d 291
(La. App. Cir. 1989) writ denied 544 Sao.2d 504 (La. 1989);
State DOTD v. Ford, 470 So.2d 389 (La. App. 3rd Cir.
1985). The amounts offered into evidence as costs by the
Landowners are uncontested. The Court finds as a fact that
under the circumstances of these cases, the amounts ex-
pended by the Landowners were appropriate. Therefore,
the Court awards the following amounts as costs:

Bayou des Familles Develop-
ment Corporation $136,305.35

Coast Quality Construction
Corporation 16,480.00

Betty Jane Perrin, wife of/and
Ronald J. Isaac 17,370.63

A-166
ATTORNEY’S FEES

The Court has the discretion to award attorney’s fees
in an amount not in excess of 25% of the difference between
the amount awarded and the amount deposited into the
registry by the West Jefferson Levee District. LSA-R.S.
38:387(E). Those factors to be considered in making an
award include: the complexity of the case, the responsibili-
ty required of the attorney, his skill, his knowledge and
diligence, the result obtained and the work performed.
State DOTD v. Estate of Davis, 572 So.2d 39, 45 (La. 1990);
State DOTD v. Hecker, 493 So.2d 125 (La. App. 5th Cir.
1986) writ denied 494 So.2d 325 (La. 1986).

These cases have presented the attorneys with a
complex historical problem which required extraordinary
skill and diligence to ferret out and present in a comprehen-
sible fashion. The presentation at trial was indicative of
substantial factual and legal investigation by the at-
torneys. it is apparent to this Court that the preparation of
these cases for trial required several thousand hours.

The Court feels that the case was well tried. The
courtesy and ability of the attorneys on both sides was evi-
dent, not only at trial but throughout pretrial proceedings.

Only one set of attorneys can win, and the winning
set of attorneys are entitled to attorney’s fees. This Court
feels obliged to award the Landowners’ attorney’s fees
equal to 25% of the difference between the compensation
awarded at trial and the amounts previously deposited into
the registry of Court. The Court awards the following
amounts as attorney’s fees:

A-167

Bayou des Familles Develop-
ment Corporation $8,189,114.00

Coast Quality Construction
Corporation 963,969.00

Betty Jane Perrin, wife of/and
Ronald J. Isaac 949,605.00

The Court is aware that the amounts awarded as at-
torney’s fees are substantial. This is because the issues in-
volved were very important. Our constitution requires that
these Landowners be awarded just compensation for their
property and this Court has endeavored to do that.

For the reasons cited above, judgment is granted in
favor of the Landowners, Bayou des Familles Development
Corporation, Coast Quality Construction Corporation, and
Betty Jane Perrin, wife of/and Ronald J. Isaac and against
the West Jefferson Levee District, in accordance with the
attached judgments.

Reasons for judgment signed this 27 day of
February, 1992, at Gretna, Louisiana.

/s/ illegible
JUDGE

A-168
APPENDIX D

24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE. PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO: 384-086
DIVISION “G*“

WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT
VS.

COAST QUALITY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

FILED: February 27, 1992 Illegible
DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court for trial on the
merits on September 16 through 20, and 28, 1991. The
above captioned case was consolidated for trial with:

A-169
WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT

VS.

BETTY JANE PERRIN, WIFE/OF AND RONALD J.
ISAAC
NO. 383-659

AND
WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT
VS.

BAYOU DES FAMILLES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NO. 376-286

The parties were represented by counsel as follows:

Harry C. Stumpf, Attorneys for West Jefferson
Owen J. Bordelon, Levee District
David C. Loeb, Attorneys for Coast Quality

Lawrence E. Chehardy, Construction Corporation

After considering the testimony of the witnesses, the
exhibits admitted into evidence, the applicable law, and the
argument presented by counsel in their respective post-
trial memoranda, for the reasons assigned in the Reasons
for Judgment presented with his Judgment, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
there be judgment herein in favor of Coast Quality Con-
struction Corporation and against the West Jefferson
Levee District in the full sum of THREE MILLION,

A-170

EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND, NINE
HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE AND 00/100 ($3,868,935)
DOLLARS, less a credit for the sum previously deposited
in the amount of THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIFTY
EIGHT DOLLARS AND 00/100 ($13,058.00) DOLLARS,
for a total of THREE MILLION, EIGHT HUNDRED
FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED
SEVENTY SEVEN AND _ 00/100 ($3,855,877.00)
DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of Coast
Quality Corporation and against the West Jefferson Levee
District for all costs of these proceedings, including expert
witness fees, in the full sum of SIXTEEN THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY AND 99/100 ($16,480.99)
DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of Coast
Quality Construction Corporation and against the West
Jefferson Levee District for attorney’s fees in an amount
equal to TWENTY FIVE (25%) PERCENT of the just
compensation awarded, or NINE HUNDRED SIXTY
THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE
AND 00/100 ($963,969.00) DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of Coast
Quality Construction Corporation and against the West
Jefferson Levee District awarding legal interest on the
amounts awarded herein from the date title vested in the
West Jefferson Levee District, that is, July 12, 1989, until
paid.

A-171

Judgment read, rendered and signed this 27 day of
February, 1992 at Gretna, Louisiana.

/s/ illegible

JUDGE

A-172
APPENDIX E

24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO: 376-286
DIVISION “G*
WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT

VS.

BAYOU DES FAMILLES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL

FILED: February 27, 1992 Illegible
DEPUTY CLERK

JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court for trial on the
merits on September 16 through 20, and 28, 1991. The
above captioned case was consolidated for trial with:

A-173
WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT

VS.
BETTY JANE PERRIN, WIFE/OF AND RONALD J.
ISAAC
NO. 383-659
AND
WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT

VS.

COAST QUALITY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
NO. 384-086

The parties were represented by counsel as follows:

Harry C. Stumpf, Attorneys for the West Jeffer-
Owen J. Bordelon, son Levee District
David C. Loeb, Attorneys for Bayou Des

Lawrence E. Chehardy Familles Development Corp.

After considering the testimony of the witnesses, the
exhibits admitted into evidence, the applicable law, and the
argument presented by counsel in their respective post-
trial memoranda, for the reasons assigned in the Reasons
for Judgment presented with his Judgment, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
there be judgment herein in favor of Bayou Des Familles

A-174

Development Corporation and against the West Jefferson
Levee District in the full sum of THIRTY TWO
MILLION,

NINE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE THOUSAND, SIX
HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR ($32,969,664.00)
DOLLARS, less a credit for the sum previously deposited
in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOU-
SAND, TWO HUNDRED SIX AND 00/100 ($213,206.00)
DOLLARS, for a total of THIRTY TWO MILLION,
SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SIX THOUSAND, FOUR
HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT AND 00/100 ($32,756,458.00)
DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of
Bayou Des Familles Corporation and against the West Jef-
ferson Levee District for all costs of these proceedings, in-
cluding expert witness fees, in the full sum of ONE-
HUNDRED THIRTY SIX THOUSAND, THREE HUN-
DRED FIVE DOLLARS AND 35/100 ($136,305.35)
DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of
Bayou Des Familles Development Corporation and against
the West Jefferson Levee District for attorney’s fees in an
amount equal to TWENTY FIVE (25%) PERCENT of the
compensation award, or EIGHT MILLION, ONE HUN-
DRED EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED
FOURTEEN AND 00/100 ($8,189,114.00) DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of
Bayou Des Familles Development Corporation and against

A-175

the West Jefferson Levee District awarding legal interest
on the amounts awarded herein from the date title vested
in the West Jefferson Levee District, that is, February 15,
1989, until paid.

Judgment read, rendered and signed this 27 day of
February, 1992 at Gretna, Louisiana.

/s/ illegible

JUDGE

A-176
APPENDIX F

24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF LOUISIANA

NO: 383-659

DIVISION “O“

WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT

VS.

BETTY JANE PERRIN, WIFE OF/AND RONALD J.

ISAAC
FILED: February 27, 1992 Illegible
DEPUTY CLERK
JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court for trial on the
merits on September 16 through 20, and 28, 1991. The
above captioned case was consolidated for trial with:

A-177
WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT

VS.

BAYOU DES FAMILLES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NO. 376-286
AND
WEST JEFFERSON LEVEE DISTRICT
VS.

COAST QUALITY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
NO. 384-086

The parties were represented by counsel as follows:

Harry C. Stumpf, Attorneys for the West Jeffer-
Owen J. Bordelon, son Levee District
David C. Loeb, Attorneys for Betty Jane Perrin,

Lawrence E. Chehardy wife of/and Ronald J. Isaac

After considering the testimony of the witnesses, the
exhibits admitted into evidence, the applicable law, and the
argument presented by counsel in their respective post-
trial memoranda, for the reasons assigned in the Reasons
for Judgment presented with his Judgment, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
there be judgment herein in favor of Betty Jane Perrin,

A-178

wife of/and Ronald J. Isaac and against the West Jefferson
Levee District in the full sum of THREE MILLION,
EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY THREE THOUSAND,
ONE HUNDRED FORTY FIVE AND 00/100
($3,823,145.00) DOLLARS, less a credit for the sum
previously deposited in the amount of TWENTY FOUR
THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY SIX AND
00/100 ($24,726.00) DOLLARS, for a total of THREE
MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT THOU-
SAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETEEN AND 00/100
($3,798, 419.00) DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of Betty
Jane Perrin, wife of/and Ronald J. Isaac and against the
West Jefferson Levee District for all costs of these pro-
ceedings, including expert witness fees, in the full sum of
SEVENTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
SEVENTY AND 63/100 ($17,370.63) DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of Betty
Jane Perrin, wife of/and Ronald J. Isaac and against the
West Jefferson Levee District for attorney’s fees in an
amount equal to TWENTY FIVE (25%) PERCENT of the
just compensation awarded, or NINE HUNDRED FORTY
NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIVE AND 00/100
($949,605.00) DOLLARS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of Betty
Jane Perrin, wife of/and Ronald J. Isaac and against the
West Jefferson Levee District awarding legal interest on

A-179

the amounts awarded herein from the date title vested in
the West Jefferson Levee District, that is, July 7, 1989, un-
til paid.

Judgment read, rendered and signed this 27 day of
February, 1992 at Gretna, Louisiana.

/s/ illegible
JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386012_0841%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.