Wells v. Zadeck
89 So. 3d 1145
| La. | 2012Background
- Wells and his mother owned an undivided one-fourth mineral interest in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, with a mineral servitude and a 1954 lease later released in 1958 after a dry hole.
- Shirey Well No. 1 produced in a unitized Paluxy Sand Unit from 1965 to 2007, though Wells’ unleased interests were not paid their proceeds.
- Wells learned of the mineral interest and production on December 19, 2008, and sued on December 18, 2009 for unpaid production proceeds.
- Zadeck Energy Group, Inc. operated the Shirey Well No. 1 until September 3, 1994, after which it stopped involvement; Wells filed suit well after the 10-year period.
- The trial court dismissed Wells’ claims as prescribed under LSA-C.C. art. 3499, prompting review of whether contra non valentem tolled the prescriptive period.
- The court ultimately held that prescription was suspended by contra non valentem and reversed/remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contra non valentem tolls prescription here | Wells asserts ignorance of the mineral interest until 2008. | Zadeck contends the claim is prescribed after 1994. | Yes, prescription suspended by contra non valentem. |
| How to apply Marin’s constructive knowledge test | Wells argues lack of knowledge and unreasonable inaction should toll prescription. | Zadeck argues Wells’ mother’s neglect implies knowledge or notice. | Court adopts Marin’s reasonableness framework to toll prescription. |
| Does Amoco-style notice requirement affect statutory duty | Plaintiff relies on non-disclosure by defendant to excuse lack of notice. | Defense claims lack of statutory notice does not trigger tolling. | Similarly, defendant’s failure to pay is a factor; no continuous record search required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (development of the discovery rule and constructive knowledge standard)
- Plaquemines Parish Commission Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 502 So.2d 1034 (La. 1987) (four categories of contra non valentem and equitable tolling)
- Amoco Production Company v. Texaco, Inc., 838 So.2d 821 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2003) (contractual duty not to mislead can toll prescription; burden on notice)
- Carter v. Haygood, 892 So.2d 1261 (La. 2005) (contra non valentem as an equitable exception to prescription)
- Lima v. Schmidt, 595 So.2d 624 (La. 1992) (burden of proof on prescription and strict construction against prescription)
- Renfroe v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Development, 809 So.2d 947 (La. 2002) (contra non valentem as exceptional remedy; strict interpretation)
- King v. Strohe, 673 So.2d 1329 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1996) (personal and heritable quasi-contractual relationship; treatment under Article 3499)
- Cichirillo v. Avondale Industries, Inc., 917 So.2d 424 (La. 2005) (prescription principles and standard of review)