150 So. 3d 610
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Goal Properties, Inc. bought land along the Red River in Rapides Parish; defendants own adjoining land to Goal’s east/southeast.
- A boundary dispute arose over Goal’s eastern boundary and the defendants began fencing on what Goal claims as its property.
- Goal filed a possessory action asserting possession by mowing, bush-hogging, and recreational use; defendants filed a reconventional demand seeking ownership of the disputed portion.
- The trial court held the reconventional demand as a possessory action, ruled in favor of the defendants’ claimed boundaries, and granted relief to the defendants.
- The trial court also gave Goal a period to file a petitory action; Goal appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a precise final judgment describing the affected property.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion because the possessory judgment failed to describe the property with sufficient particularity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action was properly classified as possessory or petitory | Goal argues the reconventional demand converts to petitory, shifting burden | Craig heirs maintained it remained a possessory action and properly described possession | Lack of finality; classification not properly resolved on record; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the possessory judgment adequately described the property | Goal contends judgment should describe immovable property with particularity | Defendants rely on evidence of boundaries; judgment binds possession | Judgment was not precise or definite and lacked a description; remanded for proper framing |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting possession to the Craig heirs | Goal asserts Craig defendants confessed possession, undermining possessory grant | Craig heirs possessed as evidenced at trial and boundaries were maintained | Judgment not reviewable on merits due to finality issue; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether possession was proven for the disputed acreage | Goal presented evidence of possession over time | Defendants contended boundaries and possession correspond to their claim | Prescriptive/possession issues unresolved due to lack of final, proper judgment and description |
Key Cases Cited
- Copellar v. Yount, 344 So.2d 1114 (La.App.3 Cir.1977) (boundaries not locatable from transcript; need precise description)
- Hurst v. Ricard, 558 So.2d 1269 (La.App.1 Cir.1990) (final judgments must describe immovable property with particularity)
- Frank v. City of Eunice, 134 So.3d 222 (La.App.3 Cir.2014) (final judgment must identify party, against whom, and relief granted)
- Acadian Gas Pipeline Sys. v. Bourgeois, 890 So.2d 69 (La.App.5 Cir.2004) (property description often required but specifics may be amended later under certain standards)
- George M. Murrell Planting & Mfg. Co. v. Dennis, 970 So.2d 1075 (La.App.1 Cir.2007) (merits may be addressed where record clarifies the description)