La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.1 (2026)

Trees, cutting without consent; co-owners and co-heirs; penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§4278.1. Trees, cutting without consent; co-owners and co-heirs; penalty

           A.(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to cut, fell, destroy, remove, or to divert for sale or use, any trees, or to authorize or direct his agent or employee to cut, fell, destroy, remove, or to divert for sale or use, any trees, growing or lying on the land of another, without the consent of, or in accordance with the direction of, the owner or legal possessor, or in accordance with specific terms of a legal contract or agreement.

           (2) It shall be unlawful for any co-owner or co-heir to cut, fell, destroy, remove, or to divert for sale or use, any trees, or to authorize or direct his agent or employee to cut, fell, destroy, remove, or to divert for sale or use, any trees, growing or lying on co-owned land, without the consent of, or in accordance with the direction of, the other co-owners or co-heirs, or in accordance with specific terms of a legal contract or agreement. The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply to the sale of an undivided timber interest pursuant to R.S. 3:4278.2.

           B. Whoever willfully and intentionally violates the provisions of Subsection A of this Section shall be liable to the owner, co-owner, co-heir, or legal possessor of the trees for civil damages in the amount of three times the fair market value of the trees cut, felled, destroyed, removed, or diverted, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.

           C. Whoever violates the provisions of Subsection A of this Section in good faith shall be liable to the owner, co-owner, co-heir, or legal possessor of the trees for three times the fair market value of the trees cut, felled, destroyed, removed, or diverted, if circumstances prove that the violator should have been aware that his actions were without the consent or direction of the owner, co-owner, co-heir, or legal possessor of the trees.

           D. If a good faith violator of Subsection A of this Section fails to make payment under the requirements of this Section within thirty days after notification and demand by the owner, co-owner, co-heir, or legal possessor, the violator shall also be responsible for the reasonable attorney fees and costs of the owner, co-owner, co-heir, or legal possessor.

           E. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to the clearing and maintenance of rights of way or to utility service situations where a utility is acting in good faith to minimize the damage or harm occasioned by an act of God. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to land surveying by or under the direction of a registered professional land surveyor, duly registered under the laws of the state of Louisiana.

           F. Repealed by Acts 2021, No. 190, §3, eff. June 11, 2021.

           G. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a civil action pursuant to provisions of this Section shall be subject to a liberative prescriptive period of five years.

           Acts 1987, No. 144, §1; Acts 1992, No. 405, §1; Acts 2009, No. 107, §2, eff. August 15, 2009; Acts 2011, No. 226, §1, eff. August 15, 2011; Acts 2021, No. 190, §3, eff. June 11, 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Hornsby v. Bayou Jack Logging, 902 So. 2d 361 (La. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hornsby v. Bayou Jack Logging, 902 So. 2d 361 (La. 2005). · cites it 29× “R.S. 3:4278.1. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that under the facts of this case, recovery for restoration costs under La.”
McConnico v. Red Oak Timber Co., 847 So. 2d 191 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 18× “R.S. 3:4278.1, the "timber piracy" statute, and the denial of its indemnity claim against defendant, Mrs.”
First South Prod. Cr. v. Georgia-Pac., 585 So. 2d 545 (La. 1991). · cites it 10× “R.S. 3:4278.1 do not allow a mortgagee to recover treble damages against a timber cutter whose operations are authorized by the landowner.”
Cole-Gill v. Moore, 862 So. 2d 1197 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “R.S. 3:4278.1. Allstate denied fault, claiming that it too was a victim of Moore, because it lost money in the timber deal as a result of Moore's misrepresentation regarding the timber's value.”
Prewitt v. Rodrigues, 893 So. 2d 927 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “R.S. 3:4278.1 AND CO-OWNERS Hart asserts that La.”
Cimarex Energy Co. v. Mauboules, 40 So. 3d 931 (La. 2010). · cites it 3× “§ 30:2027 (Employee may recover "triple damages" for retaliatory termination for environmental whistleblowing); La.”
Otwell v. Diversified Timber Servs., Inc., 896 So. 2d 222 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 9× “R.S. 3:4278.1, the trial court relied on Carroll v.”
Sullivan v. Wallace, 51 So. 3d 702 (La. 2010). · cites it 7× “R.S. 3:4278.1 renders unlawful the cutting or selling by any person of trees growing on the land of another without the consent of the owner and contains hefty penalties for any, who engage in such trespass: A.”
Powell v. Dorris, 814 So. 2d 763 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “R.S. 3:4278.1. On June 5, 2000, IP filed exceptions of no right of action, no cause of action and prematurity, and Ms.”
Alexander v. Dunn, 15 So. 3d 302 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 26× “Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in part, amend the judgment in part and affirm the judgment as amended; we reject the demand by the appellees for additional attorney fees on appeal.”
Olsen v. Johnson, 746 So. 2d 740 (La. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “R.S. 3:4278.1. Defendant, Leonard Johnson, answers the appeal, assigning five errors.”
Davis v. Culpepper, 794 So. 2d 68 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “R.S. 3:4278.1. Haworth v. L'Hoste, 95-0714 (La.”
Show all 64 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.1(0): 1 case
Rhodes v. Rhodes, 677 So. 2d 673 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.1(A): 7 cases
McConnico v. Red Oak Timber Co., 847 So. 2d 191 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 3:4278.1, the "timber piracy" statute, and the denial of its indemnity claim against defendant, Mrs.”
Sullivan v. Wallace, 51 So. 3d 702 (La. 2010). “R.S. 3:4278.1 renders unlawful the cutting or selling by any person of trees growing on the land of another without the consent of the owner and contains hefty penalties for any, who engage in such trespass: A.”
Cole-Gill v. Moore, 862 So. 2d 1197 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 3:4278.1. Allstate denied fault, claiming that it too was a victim of Moore, because it lost money in the timber deal as a result of Moore's misrepresentation regarding the timber's value.”
Sullivan v. Wallace, 766 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Carroll v. Int'l Paper Co., 649 So. 2d 474 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.1(B): 8 cases
Cole-Gill v. Moore, 862 So. 2d 1197 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 3:4278.1. Allstate denied fault, claiming that it too was a victim of Moore, because it lost money in the timber deal as a result of Moore's misrepresentation regarding the timber's value.”
Mathews v. Steib, 82 So. 3d 483 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Allain v. Martco P'ship, 828 So. 2d 587 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
Isdale v. Carman, 692 So. 2d 687 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
Olsen v. Johnson, 746 So. 2d 740 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 3:4278.1. Defendant, Leonard Johnson, answers the appeal, assigning five errors.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.1(C): 15 cases
Otwell v. Diversified Timber Servs., Inc., 896 So. 2d 222 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 3:4278.1, the trial court relied on Carroll v.”
Isdale v. Carman, 692 So. 2d 687 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
First South Prod. Cr. v. Georgia-Pac., 585 So. 2d 545 (La. 1991). “R.S. 3:4278.1 do not allow a mortgagee to recover treble damages against a timber cutter whose operations are authorized by the landowner.”
McConnico v. Red Oak Timber Co., 847 So. 2d 191 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 3:4278.1, the "timber piracy" statute, and the denial of its indemnity claim against defendant, Mrs.”
Daigle v. Cimarex Energy Co., 333 F. Supp. 3d 604 (W.D. La. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.1(D): 7 cases
McConnico v. Red Oak Timber Co., 847 So. 2d 191 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 3:4278.1, the "timber piracy" statute, and the denial of its indemnity claim against defendant, Mrs.”
Isdale v. Carman, 692 So. 2d 687 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
Olsen v. Johnson, 746 So. 2d 740 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 3:4278.1. Defendant, Leonard Johnson, answers the appeal, assigning five errors.”
Mathews v. Steib, 82 So. 3d 483 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Callison v. Livingston Timber, Inc., 849 So. 2d 649 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.1(E): 1 case
Berard v. St. Martin Par. Gov't, 115 So. 3d 761 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.