Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council authorizes parish president to sue Louisiana Fruit Company over Venice Jump Basin easement dispute
Summary
After an executive‑session briefing, the council voted to add and adopt a resolution authorizing the parish president to file suit to resolve conflicting claims about easements and rights‑of‑way in the Venice Jump Basin area, citing a 1946 conveyance recorded in COB 19 folio 35.
The Plaquemines Parish Council authorized the parish president to file suit against the Louisiana Fruit Company and any other necessary parties to resolve competing claims over rights‑of‑way, easements and servitudes in and around the area commonly known as Venice Jump Basin.
Council members moved to add the resolution to the agenda under suspension of the rules after a closed‑session briefing in which the parish attorney recommended formal legal proceedings as the only reliable means to resolve the matter. The preamble to the resolution says the parish received written claims from the Louisiana Fruit Company on Dec. 16, 2024, asserting that the parish lacks the right to lease specified lots in Venice Jump Basin despite a 1946 right‑of‑way and easement conveyance recorded in Conveyance Book 19, folio 35.
The council first voted to suspend the rules to add the emergency resolution to the agenda, and later voted to adopt the resolution. The resolution authorizes the parish president to file suit and directs the parish secretary to certify and release the resolution. The resolution text also notes that similar claims had been made previously (Oct. 31, 2012) about other lots in the basin and that the parish attorney advised litigation was necessary to resolve competing interpretations of the 1946 instrument.
Why it matters: The resolution launches formal litigation to determine property‑rights and easement scope in the Venice Jump Basin area, which will affect lease authority, parish property use and potentially future development or leases in that basin.
What the record shows: The meeting record shows an executive session was held (attorney‑client privileged briefing citing LRS 42:17(A)(2)) and that the resolution was added to the agenda by suspension and then adopted. The resolution cites the 1946 conveyance registered in COB 19 folio 35 as the instrument at issue.
Next steps: The parish attorney and the parish president have the council’s authorization to commence suit; the meeting record states that no final binding decision was made in executive session and that litigation will follow normal court procedures.
