216 So. 3d 965
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Ten contiguous lots (Lots 26–35) were intended to be equal width (one arpent ≈ 192 ft. each), but the measured distance across Lots 26–35 is 2,040.77 ft. (120.77 ft. surplus).
- Lot 26 is owned by James and Patsy Hooper; Lots 27–35 are owned by Hero Lands Company.
- Hero authorized a county to dig a 35-ft drainage canal, locating it at the westerly boundary of Lot 27 using the 192-ft measurement; canal preparations encroached into the disputed surplus.
- The Hoopers sued for trespass, brought possessory and boundary actions, and alleged ownership of the surplus by title language (“one arpent more or less”) or by acquisitive prescription (10- or 30-year).
- Trial judge apportioned the 120.77 ft equally among the ten lots (+12.077 ft per lot), fixed the Lot 26/27 boundary accordingly, denied Hoopers’ prescription claims, but (incorrectly per appellate court) found Hoopers had a possessory right; judgment reserved trespass claims for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cumulating possessory and petitory/boundary claims converted the action to a petitory action (thus waiving possessory relief) | Hoopers treated the suit as possessory and sought possessory relief up to their fence; they also asserted possession and prescriptive claims | Hero argued plaintiffs pleaded ownership claims and requested boundary fixing, which converts to petitory action | Court held Hoopers improperly cumulated claims; suit converted to petitory action and possessory claims were waived |
| Whether Hoopers proved ownership by title ("one arpent more or less") to the entire 120.77 ft surplus | "More or less" language in later deeds covers the surplus, giving Hoopers better title | Hero produced complete chain of title to sovereign and older title (to Camus) did not include "more or less"; oldest title controls when common origin exists | Court held Hoopers did not prove better title; "more or less" is only for minor inaccuracies and cannot cover large discrepancy |
| Whether Hoopers acquired the surplus by acquisitive prescription (10-yr or 30-yr) | Hoopers claimed continuous possession by them/ancestors sufficient for 10- or 30-year prescription | Hero pointed to lack of just title for 10-yr, and to Burmaster’s lease from Hero (precarious possession) defeating tacking for 30-yr until lease ended 12/31/1989 | Court held 10-yr failed for lack of just title and insufficient description; 30-yr failed because possession was precarious during lease and acquisitive period could not begin until 1/1/1990 (30 years not yet elapsed) |
| Whether equal apportionment of the 120.77 ft among the ten lots was an appropriate remedy | Hoopers argued apportionment is foreign to LA law and surplus fell entirely within Lot 26 | Hero argued lots were intended equal width; surveys show total width = 2,040.77 ft; apportionment is equitable absent ownership or possession proof | Court held equal apportionment among the ten lots was an appropriate remedy as a matter of law and fixed boundary accordingly (each lot +12.077 ft) |
Key Cases Cited
- Todd v. State, Through Dept. of Natural Res., 474 So.2d 430 (La. 1985) (distinguishes possessory actions from petitory actions and explains respective burdens)
- Pure Oil Co. v. Skinner, 294 So.2d 797 (La. 1974) (in petitory action against possessor, plaintiff must prove title good against the world)
- Pierce v. Lefort, 200 So. 801 (La. 1941) ("more or less" in deeds covers slight inaccuracies, not major discrepancies)
- Ledoux v. Waterbury, 292 So.2d 485 (La. 1974) (survey courses and distances control over acreage or quantity designations)