Gulf & Mississippi River Transportation Co. v. BP Oil Pipeline Co.
730 F.3d 484
5th Cir.2013Background
- In 1960 Gulf obtained a 20-year servitude to build and operate a booster pumping station on a 5.19-acre tract in which G&M held a 20% undivided fee interest. The servitude expired in 1980 and did not specify the fate of equipment left after a 90‑day removal window.
- Gulf (and successors Chevron → Sohio → BP) continued operating the pumping station after expiration; Chevron purchased a 1.5% fee interest in 1988 and sold it to BP. BP operated the station through 2006, when it sold to Plains.
- Gulf filed an expropriation petition in 1980 seeking a perpetual servitude after negotiations failed; the suit was not prosecuted to judgment and was abandoned. G&M did not participate in that action and received no payments from BP during the Relevant Period (1988–2006).
- G&M sued in 2010 seeking (1) trespass and (2) an accounting for profits/revenue from the pumping station for the period it was a co-owner of the Tract. The trespass claim is not at issue on appeal (prescribed); the appeal concerns the accounting claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment to BP, concluding (a) the St. Julien servitude/statutory framework applied and prescribed G&M’s claim, and (b) G&M never acquired ownership of the pumping station and thus had no right to its profits. The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a St. Julien servitude (La. R.S. §19:14) applies and prescribes G&M’s accounting claim | G&M argued St. Julien does not apply because it never consented or acquiesced to post‑1980 occupation | BP argued a statutory St. Julien servitude exists and the two‑year prescription bar applies | Court held St. Julien does not apply because G&M did not consent or acquiesce to the post‑expiration servitude; prescription under §19:2.1 not triggered |
| Whether G&M acquired co‑ownership of the pumping station (vs. only co‑ownership of the land) | G&M argued the station became co‑owned when BP left equipment after the 90‑day removal window and because the Tract was essential to station profits | BP argued the station and profits are BP’s property/earning and G&M never co‑owned the station | Court held G&M did not acquire ownership of the pumping station; that question is not dispositive for profits because profits may be civil fruits of the co‑owned Tract and requires further factfinding |
| Whether profits from operating the pumping station are "civil fruits" of the co‑owned Tract requiring an accounting to G&M | G&M argued the station’s revenues were civil fruits of the Tract (Juneau principle: co‑owner in possession must account to out‑of‑possession co‑owners) | BP argued profits derive from the station and business operations, not directly from the land, so G&M is not entitled to an accounting | Court held it is unclear whether the profits are civil fruits of the co‑owned Tract and remanded for the district court to decide that factual/legal question |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on accounting claim | G&M argued genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on whether profits are civil fruits of the Tract | BP argued no triable issue: St. Julien prescribed the claim and G&M lacks legal entitlement to profits | Court reversed summary judgment for BP and remanded for further proceedings on whether profits are civil fruits of the Tract and, if so, the proper accounting remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Julien v. Morgan La. & Tex. R.R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 924 (La. 1883) (original articulation of the doctrine allowing creation of servitudes by unopposed use and occupancy)
- Lake, Inc. v. La. Power & Light Co., 330 So. 2d 914 (La. 1976) (prospectively overruled St. Julien; prompted legislature to codify the doctrine)
- Juneau v. Laborde, 82 So. 2d 693 (La. 1955) (co‑owner in possession must account to out‑of‑possession co‑owners for rents/revenues)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity cases)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard; movant’s burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)