84 So. 3d 655
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Parcel A, a tract in St. John the Baptist Parish, was partially sold to Reynolds (Parcel B) by her mother, with the remainder (Parcel C) retained by the mother.
- After the mother's death, Reynolds and her sisters obtained undivided 1/4 interests in Parcel C; the trailer on Parcel C was inherited and later sold to Randell Brown, who is the maternal uncle to Reynolds and her sisters.
- Reynolds filed a Petition for Eviction and Removal of Structure, alleging a trailer sits partly on her land and a patio/bar was erected on her land without consent.
- Survey evidence showed the trailer sits entirely on Parcel C, while part of the structure overhangs onto Parcel B; Parcel A’s described length differed from the actual parcels.
- Randell Brown testified he built the family structure from 1982–1992 for family use; Reynolds admitted she paid taxes but did not pursue removal until 2008 and had no lease with Randell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the action petitory or possessory? | Reynolds argues possession justifies eviction. | Brown contends Reynolds seeks possession or removal of improvements. | Action is petitory; Reynolds must prove title against the world. |
| Did Reynolds prove good title against the world? | Reynolds has title from her mother’s transfer in 1983. | Title proof insufficient to show world-wide good title; reliance on one deed is not enough. | No; Reynolds failed to show good title against the world; deed alone is insufficient. |
| Can Reynolds evict in absence of a lease? | Ownership and possession by Randell is adverse; eviction should be granted. | Eviction requires proof of ownership and occupancy rights; no lease is necessary for eviction in a petitory action. | Denied; eviction requires title proof, which Reynolds lacked. |
| Should the case have proceeded as a possessory action or petition for eviction? | The pleadings set forth a possessory action due to occupancy and obstruction. | The pleadings align with a petitory action given Reynolds seeks recognition of ownership and removal of improvements. | Court properly treated as petitory; possessory action not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pure Oil Co. v. Skinner, 294 So.2d 797 (La. 1974) (title good against the world requirement for good title)
- Whitley v. Texaco, Inc., 434 So.2d 96 (La.App.5 Cir.1982) (title against the world; burden in petitory actions)
- Simpson v. Davidson, 799 So.2d 652 (La.App.2 Cir.2001) (constructive possession limits; adverse possession rule)
- Langley v. Billiot, 28 So.3d 1154 (La.App.5 Cir.2009) (burden of proof in a petitory action; good title against world)
- Moody Inv. Corp. v. Occupants of 901 East 70th St., 990 So.2d 119 (La.App.2 Cir.2008) (eviction burden when no title proof; occupant definition)