234 So. 3d 889
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Dispute over ~72.10 acres in West Feliciana Parish including upstream and downstream tracts that border the Mississippi River and Bayou Sara; portions include river banks and a former ferry landing/boat ramp area.
- Paul A. Lambert Sr. possessed and used the property from the 1950s; various written leases/servitudes with the Parish (1987, 1988, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2009) and longstanding verbal lease to Lambert Gravel Co. since 1960.
- After Lambert Sr.’s death (2010), his succession and Lambert Gravel reinstalled barricades in 2012 to block public access; the Parish removed barricades and issued a nuisance abatement notice.
- Plaintiffs filed a possessory action alleging disturbances of possession by the Parish; trial court granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment maintaining their possession, denied Parish summary judgment, and dismissed the Parish’s reconventional demand with prejudice.
- On appeal the court reversed the grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, affirmed denial of Parish summary judgment, vacated dismissal of the reconventional demand, and remanded for further proceedings — finding genuine issues of material fact about possession (extent, character, and whether portions are river bank not susceptible to private possession).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs had possession (corporeal, constructive, or civil) of the disputed property for >1 year before disturbance | Plaintiffs (Lamberts) asserted long, open, continuous acts of possession (use, improvements, leases, tax payment, equipment, sand/gravel operations) and constructive possession by title | Parish argued plaintiffs never had exclusive possession, many third parties used the land, and affidavits undermine animus and corpus of possession | Reversed trial court's grant to plaintiffs — genuine issues of material fact exist as to extent/character of possession; summary judgment for plaintiffs inappropriate |
| Whether portions of the property (banks) are river bank subject to public use and thus insusceptible to private possession separate from riparian estate | Plaintiffs contended river banks are private things subject to possession and that public servitude does not preclude private possession; classification of bank is immaterial to possessory claim | Parish maintained that river banks are accessory to riparian ownership and not separately possessed by non-riparian parties; some areas are bank and thus public/incapable of private possessory claim | Court held material factual disputes exist about whether parts are river bank and whether private possessory action may lie; parish not entitled to summary judgment on that threshold issue |
| Whether the Parish’s acts (removal of barricades, nuisance notice, public statements) constituted a disturbance in fact or law | Plaintiffs said removal of barricades, abatement notice, and officials’ statements impeded quiet enjoyment and were disturbances | Parish argued acts were consistent with public use and/or conducted within areas possessed by state/parish, so no disturbance of plaintiffs’ possession | Court found disputed facts about whether those acts disturbed plaintiffs’ possession; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed Parish’s reconventional demand with prejudice | Plaintiffs argued that granting possession made reconventional demand moot | Parish argued its reconventional demand raised distinct issues (public thing classification, parish possession) and was not challenged by motion for summary judgment | Appellate court vacated dismissal of reconventional demand and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Landry, 558 So.2d 242 (La. 1990) (quality of acts required for corporeal possession depends on nature of land)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (summary judgment pierces pleadings; court determines whether triable issue exists without weighing credibility)
- Messinger v. Rosenblum, 894 So.2d 1113 (La. 2004) (factors for designating final judgment for immediate appeal)
- Seibert v. Conservation Comm’n of La., 159 So. 375 (La. 1935) (definition of bank of navigable river and public use principles)
- Gros v. Boisvert Farms, LLC, 142 So.3d 991 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (elements and timeliness of possessory action)