182 So. 3d 1122
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Three possessory actions filed (Belle Chasse, Plaquemines Parish Government, Tulane) against heirs of Felix Villere claiming disturbance of plaintiffs’ possession; suits consolidated and resolved on cross motions for summary judgment.
- Property at issue was privately held under French rule, listed as an unconfirmed private claim in an 1880 Surveyor General report; Congress enacted the Act of Feb. 10, 1897 (the 1897 Act) to acknowledge those claims.
- Neither Felix Villere nor his representatives obtained a U.S. patent before his 1877 succession sale; the property was sold at auction in 1878 and changed hands, was expropriated by the U.S. in 1942, later conveyed by quitclaim deeds, and ultimately possessed by the plaintiffs decades before 2010.
- In 2010 the Villere heirs applied for and received federal land patents issued to "Felix Villere, and to his heirs and assigns."
- Villere heirs argued that title remained in the United States until issuance of patents (so prior transfers were void); plaintiffs argued the 1897 Act itself confirmed private ownership (patents are evidentiary), and PPG/Tulane alternatively asserted acquisitive prescription.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to each plaintiff (confirming title and recognizing State mineral reservations for some parcels), denied Villere heirs’ cross-motion, and dismissed heirs’ claims with prejudice; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's (Villere heirs') Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of the 1897 Act on title | 1897 Act confirmed private owners' titles immediately; patents merely provide written proof | Title vested in U.S. from 1803 until patent issuance; transfers prior to patent were invalid | Act confirmed private ownership; issuance of patents not prerequisite to valid private title |
| Validity of transfers after Villere succession sale (1878) | Sales and subsequent conveyances from Villere’s successors were valid and render plaintiffs assigns of Villere | Those transfers were void because U.S. retained title until 2010 patents | Transfers were valid; plaintiffs’ chains of title prevail as assigns of Villere |
| Legal import of 2010 patents issued to "heirs and assigns" | Patents inure to assignees/transferees; do not defeat intervening bona fide possessors | Patents demonstrate heirs’ superior title beginning in 2010 and retroactive U.S. ownership | 2010 patents do not defeat bona fide possessors whose title derived from earlier valid conveyances; patents serve evidentiary role and inure to assigns |
| Acquisitive prescription (alternative for PPG/Tulane) | Plaintiffs possessed in good faith with just title (or for statutory periods) and acquired title by prescription | Heirs allege superior legal title via patents | Court affirmed on statutory-ground analysis unnecessary to decide; disposition favors plaintiffs but prescription analysis was pretermitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Corkran Oil & Dev. Co. v. Arnaudet, 199 U.S. 182 (1905) (quotes and interprets the language and effect of the 1897 Act)
- Cherami v. Cantrelle, 174 La. 995 (1932) (federal patent inures to benefit of assignees, not necessarily heirs)
- Sorapuru v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 529 So.2d 1372 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1988) (patent issued long after transfers inured to benefit of assignees/transferees)
- Landes v. Brant, 51 U.S. 348 (1850) (early precedent on effect of federal patents and conveyances)