STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2023 CA 0023

BRUCE CHILDERS

VERSUS

LAUREL LAKES ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

DATE OF JUDGMENT.. NOV 3 0 2023

ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA

NUMBER 099089, SECTION 25

HONORABLE WILSON E. FIELDS, JUDGE

Taylor Dunne

Thomas D. Gildersleeve

Leah C. Cook

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Edward J. Laperouse, II

Laura E. Marcantel

Trenton C. Ball

Christopher M. Patin

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Counsel for Plaintiff -Appellant

Bruce Childers

Counsel for Defendant -Appellant

Laurel Lakes Estates Homeowner' s

Association, Inc. 

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ. 

Disposition: AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED. 

Q5 3. conc.-(- S
CHUTZ, J. 

Defendant -in -reconvention, Bruce Childers, appeals the trial court' s

judgment, concluding that he violated the landscaping maintenance covenant set

forth in a subdivision' s declaration and awarding a fine and attorney fees in favor

of plaintiff -in -reconvention, Laurel Lakes Estates Homeowner' s Association, Inc. 

the HOA). The HOA also appeals, seeking an increase in the arnount of attorney

fees awarded. For the following reasons, we amend the amount of the attorney fees

and, as amended, affirm the trial court' s judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Childers instituted this lawsuit on August 28, 2020, by filing a petition for

declaratory relief, wherein he averred that five amendments to the subdivision' s

Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions for Laurel Lakes Estates" 

the Declaration) were not passed in accordance with the process outlined in the

Declaration and/ or violated the terms of the Declaration. He asked that the court

declare the amendments invalid and of no effect, award damages for all past

charged assessments and the costs of prosecuting the suit for declaratory judgment. 

The HOA answered the lawsuit and, on October 23, 2020, asserted a

reconventional demand, averring that it had imposed a fine against Childers in the

total amount of $3, 300.00 that Childers did not pay. In addition to recovery of the

fine, the HOA requested attorney fees. Childers answered the reconventional

demand, generally denying the HOA' s allegations. 

In a judgment, signed on January 24, 2022, the trial court subsequently

granted a motion for partial summary judgment filed by the HOA and dismissed all

of Childers' claims on the principal demand. On appeal, this court concluded that

Childers' claims challenging four of the five amendments to the Declaration were

prescribed, and the other amendment was valid and enforceable. Thus, the trial

2
court' s judgment, dismissing all of Childers' claims based on its conclusion that all

the amendments to the Declaration were valid and enforceable, was affirmed. See

Childers v. Laurel Lakes Estates Homeowners Ass' n, Inc., 2022- 0936 ( La. App. 

1st Cir. 5124123), 368 So.3d 1123. 

Insofar as the HOA' s reconventional demand, the trial court overruled a

peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription asserted by Childers and

proceeded to a three-day trial at which testimonial and documentary evidence was

adduced. The trial court subsequently issued oral reasons for judgment, finding that

Childers violated the landscaping maintenance covenant of the Declaration, as

amended, and awarded a fine of $100.00 to the HOA. It also imposed attorney fees

against Childers and in favor of the HOA in the amount of $69, 225. 00. A judgment

in conformity with the trial court' s rulings was signed on May 13, 2022. The trial

court denied the HOA' s limited motion for new trial, which sought an increase in

the amount of attorney fees. Both Childers and the HOA have appealed. 

PRESCRIPTION

On appeal, Childers initially challenges the trial court' s denial of his

peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription, asserting that the

HOA' s reconventional demand was untimely. As such, Childers contends that the

HOA is not entitled to a fine, suggesting that his property should be released from

the landscaping maintenance covenant set forth in the Eighth Amendment to the

Declaration. 

Initially, we note a judgment overruling an exception is generally considered

an interlocutory judgment and is not appealable. See La. C.C. P. arts. 1841 and

2083. However, when an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, the

appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse interlocutory rulings prejudicial

to him in addition to the review of the final judgment. State Through Louisiana

3
Bd. ofEthics a Dumas, 2023- 0013 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 612123), 370 So.3d 55, 58

n. 1. 

The objection of prescription may be raised by a peremptory exception. La. 

C.C.P. art. 927(A)( 1). Ordinarily, a party urging the exception of prescription bears

the burden of proving that the prescriptive period has accrued. Newton v. St

Tammany Fire Dist. No. 12, 2020- 0797 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 2/ 19/ 21), 318 So.3d

206, 210. When evidence is introduced at the hearing, the trial court' s findings are

reviewed under a manifest error standard of review. But even if evidence is

introduced, when there is no dispute regarding material facts, the reviewing court

applies a de novo standard of review, giving no deference to the trial court' s legal

conclusions. See Wilson v. Whitfield, 2022- 0488 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 2124/ 23), 361

So.3d 512, 515. 

Childers maintains that the landscaping maintenance covenant constitutes a

building restriction and, as such, is subject to the liberative prescription of two

years set forth in La. C.C. art. 781. Article 781 states. 

No action for injunction or for damages on account of the

violation of a building restriction may be brought after two years from

the commencement of a noticeable violation. After the lapse of this

period, the immovable on which the violation occurred is freed of the

restriction that has been violated. 

The HOA relies on La. C.C. art. 3499 to assert that its reconventional

demand is subject to a ten- year prescriptive period. According to Article 3499, 

Unless otherwise provided by legislation, a personal action is subject to a

liberative prescription of ten years." 

The undisputed evidence established that the HOA created a deficiency

report noting landscaping maintenance covenant violations on Childers' property at

some time prior to the October 23, 2018 annual meeting of the HDA. Childers

asserts that the HOA' s reconventional demand seeking a fine constituted an action

11
for damages. Since the action was not filed until October 23, 2020, it was

untimely, having been brought more than two years from the commencement of

the noticeable and apparent violation. 

Building restrictions, or " restrictive covenants" as they are generally known

in the common law and occasionally termed in Louisiana, are charges imposed by

the owner of an immovable in pursuance of a general plan governing building

standards, specified uses, and improvements. See La. C.C. art. 775; Fern Creek

Owners' Assn, Inc. v. City of Mandeville, 2008- 1694 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 

06/30/09), 21 So. 3d 369, 377. 

The Louisiana Homeowners Association Act, La. R.S. 9: 1141. 1- 1141. 9 ( the

LHAA), became effective on June 16, 1999. See 1999 La. Acts, No. 309. The

LHAA does not affect the validity or superiority of any provision of a community

document and applies only to the extent that community documents are silent. See

La. R.S. 9: 1141. 3( A). The statutory scheme established by the LHAA mandates

that community documents prevail over the LHAA, except to the extent that

community documents are silent. Under the LHAA, La. C. C. art. 783 was also

amended to provide that the [ LHAA] " shall supersede any and all provisions _.. 

Title [ V. Building Restrictions] in the event of a conflict." See Fern Creek

Owners' Ass' n, Inc., 21 So. 3d at 377. 

The Declaration, as amended, is a community document. See La. R.S. 

9: 1141. 2( 3). According to the pertinent provisions of Article 11, Item 4(h)( 1) of the

Declaration, as set forth in the Eighth Amendment: 

Any ... fine not paid within ... [ 30] days after the due date shall bear

interest.... The HOA may bring an action at Iaw against the Owner

personally obligated to pay the same or foreclose the ... lien and

privilege against the Owner' s Estate. 

It is undisputed that when Childers purchased his home, he did so subject to

the provisions set forth in the Declaration. And while he called into question the

5
propriety of the Eighth Amendment in his principal demand, seeking a declaratory

judgment holding that the amendment was invalid, the trial court concluded to the

contrary, and this court affirmed. Thus, the provisions ofArticle 11, Item 4(h)( 1) of

the Declaration, as amended, are applicable, and the HOA' s action against Childers

to pay the fine assessed against him is a personal obligation. Because the

obligation to pay any properly assessed the fine against him in accordance with the

amended provisions of the Declaration is personal, the applicable prescriptive

period is ten years as provided by La. C.C. art. 3499. See Southern Trace Prop. 

Owner's Assn v. Williams, 52,653 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 9/25/ 19), 280 So. 3d 826, 

82934. See also Eastover Prop. Owner' s Assn, Inc. a Cochrane, 2002- 1502

La. App. 4th Cir. 05/ 21/ 03), 848 So.2d 710, 712- 13, writ denied, 2003- 1604 ( La. 

11/ 21/ 03), 860 So.2d 544 ( given the terms of the subdivision' s act of restriction, 

which set forth the nature of the assessments as being personal to the owners of the

property, the 10 -year prescriptive period of Article 3499 applied).' Accordingly, 

the trial court correctly overruled Childers' exception ofprescription directed at the

HOA' s reconventionaI demand. 

IMPOSITION OF FINE

Childers asserts the trial court erred in concluding that he violated the

landscaping maintenance provisions set forth in the Eighth Amendment to the

Declaration. Those provisions state in relevant part: 

Landscape maintenance: Each Estate Owner shall be responsible for

the maintenance of all landscaping on his Estate and for maintaining

his Estate, residence and driveway in a clean and orderly fashion at all

titres, and the owner shall be responsible for paying all costs of said

maintenance and for any such repairs which may be necessary. 

1 Section 4 of 1999 La. Acts, No. 309, expressly provides that the provisions of the LHAA

legislatively overrule the case of Brier Lake, Inc. v. Jones, 97- 2413 ( La. 4/ 14198), 710 So.2d

1054, are remedial, and shall apply both prospectively and retroactively. Thus, Childers' reliance

on Brier Lake to suggest the landscaping maintenance covenant constitutes a building restriction

subject to the 2 -year prescriptive period set forth in Article 781 is misplaced. 

2
Estate Owners shall be responsible for maintaining their own

landscaping and keeping Estates mowed at all times and free from

rubbish, trash, excess building materials, debris and noxious weeds. If

landscaping is not maintained, if weeds or grass are allowed to grow

in excess of 8", or if rubbish. or trash, etc. is allowed to remain on any

Estate in such amounts as shall be considered unsightly ( in the sole

discretion of the [ Architectural Control Committee (ACC)]), the ACC

may levy a fine/penalty in the amount of $100 against Estate Owner. 

If the unsightly condition remains for more than 7 days after a fine is

levied and notice given to the Estate Owner, the ACC may levy an

additional $ 100 fine for each [ 7 -day] period until the

condition/ violation has been rectified. Notice of such fine will be sent

via email and/or attached to Owner' s monthly statement. 

Building restrictions imposed on a subdivision may be likened to a contract

among the property owners and the developer. Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. 

Co., 2017- 0787 ( La. App. Ist Cir. 7118118), 254 So.3d 714, 728, writ denied, 2018- 

1369

018

1369 ( La. 11114118), 256 So.3d 291. Documents establishing building restrictions

are subject to interpretation and enforcement as contracts. Id

Contracts have the effect of law between the parties and the courts are to

interpret them according to the common intent of the parties. See La. C. C. arts. 

1983, 2045. When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no

absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the

parties' intent. La. C.C. art. 2046. Parties are free to contract for any object that is

lawful. La. C.C. art. 1971. 

Contracts, subject to interpretation from the instrument' s four corners

without the necessity of extrinsic evidence, are to be interpreted as a matter of law. 

Hampton P. Hampton, Inc., 97- 1779 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 6/ 29/98), 713 So.2d 1185, 

1189- 90. But the trial court' s factual findings pertinent to the interpretation of a

contract are not to be disturbed unless manifest error is shown. See Hornbeck

Offshore Operators, LLC P. Cross Grp., Inc., 2016- 0174 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 

10/ 31116), 207 So.3d 1141, 1146, writ denied, 2016-2095 ( La. 1] 9/ 17), 214 So.3d

872. 

7
The trial court concluded that Childers did not receive notice of the

imposition of a $ 100. 00 fine until receipt of the October 30, 2019 certified letter

from the ACC, which advised Childers that the fine had begun to accrue as of

April 3, 2019 for a total amount due of $3, 300.00. Because of the lack of notice, 

the trial court limited the HOA' s recovery from Childers to the $ 100.00 fine. On

appeal, the HOA has not challenged either the trial court' s factual finding that

notice was not received by Childers until the October 30, 2019 letter or the

quantum ofthe fine and, thus, these conclusions are not subject to review. 

In his appeal, Childers likewise does not assign error to the quantum of the

fine imposed. Instead, he contends that the trial court erred in concluding he

violated the landscaping maintenance covenant so as to warrant the imposition of

any fine at all. 

The record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court' s factual

finding that Childers violated the landscaping maintenance covenant. According to

the October 30, 2019 letter, the April 3, 2019 letter to Childers was attached in

which the ACC had advised Childers that, in addition to the need to submit a

landscaping plan for ACC approval, a "[ mlulch pallet cannot be stored where

visible from the street." Under Article I1, Sec. 3( b)( 1), the estate owner is

responsible for keeping the estate free from rubbish, trash, excess building

materials and that if "rubbish or trash, etc." is allowed to remain on any estate in

such amounts as shall be considered unsightly in the sole discretion of the ACC, 

the ACC may levy a fine/penalty in the amount of $100. 00. Although Childers

suggests that the pallet of mulch is indicative of landscaping maintenance and

cannot be considered " rubbish or trash," the Declaration leaves to " the sole

discretion" of the ACC the determination of the amount of "rubbish or trash, etc." 

that is " considered unsightly." Childers acknowledged having had a pallet with 50

N. 
bags of mulch in his yard. He testified that the pallet was stored behind a bush by a

parking pad on the east side of the house and admitted the pallet was present for

two to three weeks. Childers described that the location of the stored pallet fronted

the street. This testimony constitutes a reasonable factual basis to support the trial

court' s finding that Childers violated the landscaping maintenance covenant. 

Therefore, the trial court correctly awarded to the HOA the fine of $100.00. 

ATTORNEY FEES

Attorney fees are recoverable when specifically authorized by a contract. 

H&E Equip. Servs., Inc. u. Sugar & Power Intl, LLC, 2016.1070 ( La. App. 1 st

Cir. 2/ 17/ 17), 215 So -3d 446, 451. The amended Declaration, which we interpret

and enforce as a contract, see Doyle, 254 So.3d at 72$, provides in Article VI, 

Paragraph 1( a): 

The [ HOA], [ ACC], or any Owner, shall have the right to

enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, 

conditions, covenants, reservations, easements, liens and charges now

or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. The non - 

prevailing party to any proceeding at law or in equity shall be

responsible for all costs, including [attorney] fees. 

In fashioning its attorney fees award of $69,225. 00, the trial court stated: 

I know that the [ HOA] argued ... that the [ attorney] fees

determination] does not hinge upon whether or not they are

reasonable .... However, the court has to have something to go off to

know whether or not the hours that were put on the paper were

actually hours as it relates to reasonableness of this particular case. So

in calculating the [ attorney] fees, during the trial it was mentioned that

each homeowner was assessed $ 1500 for this litigation. I asked ... 

Childers ... whether ... he paid that $ 1500. And he paid the $ 1500

towards the litigation that is against him. So that gave the court reason

to believe that all of the homeowners paid their $1500. And [there are] 

43 lots .... [ W]hen I calculated 1500 times 43 lots, I carne up with

2 At the time the HOA imposed the fine, the only outstanding violation the ACC claimed existed

was that "[ a] new professional landscape plan needs to be submitted to the ACC for approval and

then implemented by owner." Childers asserts that because nothing in the applicable version of

Article II, Sec. 3( b)( 1) requires that he submit new landscaping plans or authorizes the

imposition of a fine for an owner' s failure to submit and obtain approval of such landscaping

plans, the trial court erred in finding him liable for the $ 100. 00 fine. Because a reasonable factual

basis exists to support the trial court' s imposition of the $ 100. 00 fine, we find it unnecessary to

reach these issues and pretermit such a discussion. 

9
64,500 for [ attorney] fees. Plus I calculated the time that we spent

here in court on this case. I understand the [ HOA] had three lawyers

representing [ it] on this matter. But the court looked at the amount of

time ... that was spent in trial [ which] was 13 [ and] '/ z hours. ... 

Thirteen and one-half hours] times $ 350 ... [ comes] up to $4, 725 ... 

for a total of ... $69,225. 

Both Childers and the HOA have appealed the trial court' s award of

69,225. 00 in attorney fees.' Childers contends the award is unreasonable and

excessive, while the HOA maintains that, pursuant to the provisions of Article VI, 

Paragraph 1( a) of the Declaration, it is entitled to $ 109, 033. 41, the full amount its

attorneys charged. 

The trial court has much discretion in fixing an award of attorney fees, and

its award will not be modified on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of

discretion. But attorney fees must be " reasonable." The amount is regulated by the

Rules of Professional Conduct. MIE Properties -La, L.L.C. v. Carey, 2016- 0763

La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 17/ 17), 213 So. 3d 1274, 1282. 

Rule 1. 5( a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides the following

factors to determine attorney fees: 

1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the

questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service

properly; 

2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance

of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the

lawyer; 

3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal

services; 

4) the amount involved and the results obtained; 

3 Childers assigned as error the trial court' s interlocutory ruling, which denied his motion to

amend his First amended petition for declaratory relief to expressly allege entitlement to attorney

fees which, he asserted, was an implicit request in his earlier prayer for costs. Childers was

unsuccessful in his appeal of the trial court' s dismissal of his declaratory relief claims, see

Childers, 368 So.3d at 1134, and we have found no merit in his challenge of the imposition of

the $ 100.00 fine against him. Therefore, as the non -prevailing party, Childers is not entitled to

attorney fees under Article VI, Paragraph 1( a) of the Declaration. Thus, the issue of his

entitlement to attorney fees is moot. See Cat' s Meow, Inc. v City ofNew Orleans, 98- 0601 ( La. 

10120198), 720 So. 2d 1186, 1193 ( Courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical, or moot

controversies, or render advisory opinions. To avoid such questions, courts require cases

submitted for adjudication to be justiciable and ripe for decision. A justiciable controversy

connotes an existing actual and substantial dispute.). 

10
5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the

circumstances; 

6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with

the client; 

7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or

lawyers performing the services; and

8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 

While we find the trial court' s approach in fashioning its award innovative, 

in light of the evidence in this record, we conclude that the amount of $69,225. 00

is unreasonably excessive. Thus, we turn to the evidence to determine an amount

ofreasonable attorney fees. See MIEProperties -La, L.L.C., 213 So.3d at 12$ 2. 

Despite the zealous advocacy of the parties, the litigation was not complex

although areas of the law were not fully settled. Laperouse APLC ( Laperouse) 

provided to the HOA its primary representation. Although Laperouse clearly

expended much time and effort, the redaction of all the entries in the invoices

delineating the activity it undertook makes it impossible for this court to assess

whether the efforts were necessary and proper. Furthermore, the HOA was

awarded only $ 100. 00 of the $ 3, 300.00 fine it sought from Childers. 

Moreover, $ 19,246.50 of the $ 109,033. 41 of the attorney fees that the HOA

contends constitutes a reasonable attorney fee is attributable to Christopher L. 

Whittington, the attorney who acted as the HOA' s corporate representative to

assist Laperouse. According to Whittington, the HOA found it "more economical" 

to hire him to gather information since, as a homeowner in the Laurel Lakes

Estates subdivision, he had " mare access" to that information. Whittington testified

that because the events giving rise to the litigation occurred before he lived in the

subdivision, it made gathering information to respond to Childers' discovery

challenging." His hourly rate in rendering services on behalf of the HOA was

340.00. Whittington forthrightly acknowledged that he charged the HOA for all

appearances he made, including the time he spent in preparation of and attendance

11
at his HOA corporate representative deposition. He also charged for the time he

was present at the depositions of HOA board members Gina Callahan and Spencer

Callahan at which Laperouse also had two attorneys present defending the HOA. 

The fees charged to the HDA by Laperouse and Whittington were at fixed

rates. In addition to Whittington' s hourly rate of $340. 00, Laperouse, which

applied reductions to its customary rates, charged the HDA the hourly rate of

285.00 for the lead attorney and $ 195. 00 for the lead associate attorney. 

Whittington testified that he had 29 years of experience and that Laperouse' s lead

attorney had a similar length of experience as well as significant homeowners

association litigation experience. No other explanation was offered for the charges

set forth in the Laperouse invoice.' 

While unsuccessful in collecting the entire fine the HOA sought to collect, it

is evident from the record that much time and diligent efforts were expended in the

attorneys' collection work, Additionally, we note that in pursuing representation on

behalf of the 144A, other advocacy opportunities were precluded particularly to

Laperouse whose homeowners litigation expertise resulted in a more direct

appreciation of the factual issues. Considering the factors required in the

While the redacted invoice established a third biller (Michelle Crosby), who charged the HOA

at the rate of $275. 00/hour, nothing in the testimony identified who she was or the activity she

undertook in representing the HOA. 

5 The HOA maintains that in fashioning reasonable attorney fees, its defense against Childers' 

claims on his principal demand should be considered, noting that Laperouse charged it

64,459. 51 as of the date of the hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment. But despite

the HOA' s having alleged entitlement to an award of attorney fees, the judgment, which granted

the motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed all of Childers' claims against the HOA, 

did not award attorney fees. Because the HOA failed to seek attorney fees in conjunction with

the trial court' s rendition of the final judgment rejecting all of Childers' claims in his principal

demand, see La. C. C.P. art. 1915(A)( 1), it cannot do so now. See La. R. S. 13: 4231 ("[ A] valid

and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct

review ... [ i] f the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time

of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the

litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of

action.'). Thus, in our calculation of reasonable attorney fees, we consider only the attorney fees

the HOA incurred in conjunction with its claim for the imposition of a fine for Childers' 

violation ofthe landscaping maintenance covenant. 

12
determination of an amount of reasonable attorney fees, we conclude an award of

15, 000.00 in attorney fees to the HOA is appropriate in this case. Therefore, the

trial court' s judgment is amended to award the amount of $15, 000.00 in attorney

fees to the HOA. 

On appeal, the HOA seeks attorney fees for representation before this court. 

Generally, an increase in attorney fees should be awarded when a party who was

awarded attorney fees in the trial court is forced to and successfully defends an

appeal. Osborne v. Ladner, 96- 0863 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 2114197), 691 So. 2d 1245, 

1259. Since we have reduced the amount of the award of attorney fees, the HOA

was only partially successful in defending the appeal. As such, we decline to make

an additional award of attorney fees. 

DECREE

For these reasons, we amend the trial court' s judgment to award $ 15, 000.00

in attorney fees to the HOA. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Costs

of these appeals are assessed one-half to Bruce Childers and one-half to Laurel

Lakes Estates Homeowner' s Association, Inc. 

AMENDED AND, AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED. 

Although the HOA successfully defended Childers' appeal of the partial summary judgment, it

failed to file an answer and request attorney fees in that appeal and, thus, is not entitled to such

relief in these appeals_ 

13