Judy Barrie v. City of New Orleans and Tiffany A. Romano, 2020-CA-0469

Plaintiff Judy Barrie sought to acquire and quiet title to 122 16th Street by following La. R.S. 9:5633 and sought reimbursement under La. R.S. 9:5633(E)(1).
Defendant/owner Tiffany Romano filed a reconventional demand asserting tort claims (conversion, trespass, fraud, etc.) and sought monetary damages, not a judgment recognizing ownership.
The district court dismissed Barrie’s action to quiet title and her reimbursement claim; the appellate majority affirmed dismissal of the quiet-title claim but reversed dismissal of the reimbursement claim.
Judge Lobrano concurred in affirming the quiet-title dismissal but dissented from reinstating the reimbursement claim, issuing the reasons summarized here.
Lobrano explains La. R.S. 9:5633(E)(1) applies only when an owner is successful in a real (petitory) action to recover ownership of immovable property; Romano’s reconventional demand sought only monetary relief and thus was a personal action.
On Barrie’s alternative detrimental-reliance theory (La. C.C. art. 1967), the record showed Romano paid taxes, maintained the property, changed locks, placed a dumpster, performed renovations before demolition, and posted no-trespass signs and fencing—supporting that Romano did not acquiesce and undermining Barrie’s reliance claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether La. R.S. 9:5633(E)(1) requires reimbursement when owner prevails	Barrie: statute entitles possessor to reimbursement if owner brings action and recovers	Romano: reconventional demand sought money (personal action), not a real/petitory action, so statute doesn't apply	Lobrano: statute applies only when owner is successful in a real action; Romano's claims were personal, so §9:5633(E)(1) does not apply
Whether Barrie proved detrimental reliance under La. C.C. art. 1967	Barrie: Romano’s alleged inaction induced Barrie to remediate, pay taxes, and rely to her detriment	Romano: Barrie pursued statutory acquisition under §9:5633; Romano took affirmative steps to protect the property (taxes, maintenance, locks, renovation, signs) — no justifiable reliance	Lobrano: detrimental-reliance claim fails; Barrie acted pursuant to statutory process and evidence shows Romano did not acquiesce

Suire v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov’t, 907 So.2d 37 (La. 2005) (detrimental reliance need not rest on a formal enforceable contract)
Babkow v. Morris Bart, P.L.C., 726 So.2d 423 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1998) (detrimental reliance/estoppel principles)
Orr v. Bancroft Bag, Inc., 687 So.2d 1068 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1997) (definition/quotation on estoppel)
Andrus v. Andrus, 634 So.2d 1254 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1994) (detrimental reliance authority)
Lakeland Anesthesia, Inc. v. United Healthcare of La., Inc., 871 So.2d 380 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (sets elements for detrimental reliance)
Boes Iron Works, Inc. v. Gee Cee Grp., Inc., 206 So.3d 938 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (estoppel not favored; difficult to recover)
Louisiana Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Richard, 125 So.3d 398 (La. 2013) (cautionary note that estoppel is disfavored in Louisiana law)