142 So. 3d 991
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (several adjacent landowners) sued Boisvert Farms after Boisvert recorded a quitclaim deed (Aug. 31, 2010; recorded Sept. 2, 2010) purporting to convey a 100-foot-wide strip that traverses plaintiffs’ lots in West Baton Rouge Parish.
- Plaintiffs alleged they had peaceable, continuous possession of the strip and sought declaratory judgment of possession and ownership under La. C.C.P. art. 3654; they moved for summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs submitted affidavits and documentary evidence showing title recordings, long‑continued farming, improvements, leases, tax payments, and acts of corporeal possession dating back to mid‑20th century (several recorded between 1972 and 2001).
- Boisvert Farms relied on a title examiner’s affidavit concluding the railroad (and successor Union Pacific) held fee title from 1910 and that Boisvert acquired the strip by quitclaim; Boisvert argued the railroad’s prior possession tacked to Boisvert and that plaintiffs never evicted the railroad.
- The trial court granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment, finding plaintiffs possessed the strip with intent to own and acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription; the court declared plaintiffs owners of the 100‑foot strip and Boisvert appealed.
- On de novo review the appellate court affirmed: plaintiffs’ corporeal and constructive possession interrupted the railroad’s possession, shifting the burden to Boisvert to prove title against the world, which Boisvert failed to do.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment could be granted based on acquisitive prescription not expressly pleaded | Plaintiffs put ownership and possession at issue in their declaratory judgment and summary judgment filings; acquisitive prescription arises from those claims | Boisvert: acquisitive prescription was not pled or raised in the motion and thus cannot be the basis for summary judgment | Court: No error — ownership/possession was squarely presented under La. C.C.P. art. 3654; raising prescription in reply was permissible and summary judgment on possession/ownership was appropriate |
| Whether plaintiffs had possession sufficient to acquire ownership by prescription (ten‑ or thirty‑year) | Plaintiffs: continuous, corporeal and constructive possession (farming, improvements, leases, paying taxes) since mid‑1900s, disturbing railroad possession; thus acquisitive prescription completed | Boisvert: railroad (and successors) retained possession/title from 1910; Boisvert could tack railroad possession and its quitclaim conveyed railroad’s title | Court: Plaintiffs proved possession with intent to own; the railroad’s possession was interrupted; Boisvert failed to prove title against the world; plaintiffs acquired ownership by prescription |
| Who bore burdens of proof and whether genuine issue of material fact remained | Plaintiffs: made a prima facie showing entitling them to judgment; burden shifted to Boisvert to produce evidence of conflicting title | Boisvert: presented title examiner affidavit asserting continuous railroad title, creating disputed fact | Court: Burden shifted to Boisvert, but its evidence was insufficient to show a genuine triable issue; summary judgment proper |
| Effect of quitclaim deed recorded by Boisvert in 2010 | Plaintiffs: quitclaim only conveyed whatever interest grantor had and cannot defeat prescription-based ownership acquired by possessors | Boisvert: quitclaim evidence of ownership from railroad chain of title | Court: Quitclaim did not overcome plaintiffs’ acquired ownership via possession; Boisvert did not prove railroad remained owner when quitclaim executed |
Key Cases Cited
- Granda v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 935 So.2d 698 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (mover’s burden when he will bear proof at trial)
- Lewis v. Morgan, 93 So.3d 741 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2012) (summary judgment burden and showing absence of factual support)
- Mitchell v. Southern Scrap Recycling, LLC, 93 So.3d 754 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2012) (nonmovant’s obligation once mover supports motion)
- Mt. Everett African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Carter, 705 So.2d 1179 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1997) (possession first in declaratory actions under art. 3654)
- Mai v. Floyd, 951 So.2d 244 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (elements of possession and disturbance)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Landry, 546 So.2d 858 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1989) (possession as preliminary before ownership)
- R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 894 So.2d 1113 (La. 2005) (factors for certifying partial judgments as final)
- Lafourche Realty Co. v. Duard Eymard Co., Inc., 688 So.2d 1138 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1994) (declaratory judgment may raise ownership when possessor seeks recognition)