Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 9, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Mildred Grantham petitioned the court to establish a boundary between her property and that of Loy Ray Gaddis, Jr., based on a claim of acquisitive prescription. Gaddis contended that the boundary was undisputed due to his record title and that Grantham had not possessed the property openly and adversely for the required thirty years. After trial, the court ruled in favor of Grantham, but Gaddis appealed, citing legal errors in the judgment. The appellate court found that Grantham failed to meet the burden of proof for thirty-year acquisitive prescription, stating that she lacked just title and did not establish continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal possession as required by Louisiana law. The court reversed the trial judgment and dismissed Grantham's suit with prejudice, imposing costs on her. The appellate review highlighted that the burden of proof for proving possession lay with Grantham, and the trial court's error in assigning this burden to Gaddis affected its ruling.
Louisiana Civil Code Article 3487 states that possession is limited to what has been actually possessed. To establish a claim for acquisitive prescription, the claimant must demonstrate intent to possess as an owner, adverse to the actual owner, for thirty years. Article 3442 permits "tacking" of possession from a transferor to a transferee if there is no interruption in possession. A party claiming acquisitive prescription through tacking must show continuous possession up to a visible boundary, as the disputed property is not within their title. The nature and use of the land dictate the possession required for prescription.
In the case of Mr. Gaddis, the abstracts of title for the properties are undisputed. The evidence indicates that George A. Grantham began acquiring interests in the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section B, Township 8 North, Range 11 West, in November 1927 and later occupied a house on the land now owned by the Defendant. There is no documentation of any agreements between the Granthams and the landowner regarding occupancy. The Granthams raised eleven children and farmed the property, with limited use of the remaining acreage. The Grantham house remains in the southern part of the contested area, with Carhee Road running through the property.
After G.A. Grantham's death in 1965 and subsequent events, no regular farming or occupancy occurred until R.E. Grantham began using the old house in 1983. The Defendant, L.R. Gaddis, Jr., acquired the land on which the house sits in 1954, with the surrounding property inherited in 1979 and gifted in 2010. The details of occupancy and property use are critical to the legal considerations surrounding possession and potential claims to the land.
The Gaddis family has managed agricultural operations, including farming and raising cattle, on their property for over thirty years. R.E. Grantham began using a house on this land in the summer of 1983, but it had been abandoned since 1970. The Gaddis family provided Grantham with essential resources such as water and fencing materials, indicating their consent for his use of the house. Grantham's use of the land was limited; aside from the house, he had a small garden for one summer, without any intent to claim ownership.
In 1984, Marlon T. Grantham, heir to G.A. Grantham, transferred his interest in Section 3 land, divesting himself of any claims to it. After R.E. Grantham's death in 1991, his daughter Loretta took his belongings and executed a deed transferring her father’s interest in Grantham lands to the Plaintiff and her husband in 1992. The Plaintiff and her husband began re-acquiring interests in the land in 1992 and started repairs on the old house, while the Gaddis family continued their agricultural practices on the property.
The Gaddis family maintained daily presence on the property from 1954 onwards, with no adverse possession actions until around 2004 when they were fenced off from a part of the southern area. The Plaintiff's actions, including erecting a fence and a locked gate, did not provide notice of intent to claim ownership until this point. The court found that Mr. Gaddis did not have the burden to prove acquisitive prescription of the "subject problem area," as he is the record title owner, and it was the Plaintiff’s responsibility to demonstrate continuous adverse possession for thirty years.
Mrs. Grantham's claim for acquisitive prescription based on thirty years of possession fails to meet the requisite legal standards outlined in LePrettre v. Progressive Land Corp., which stipulates that possession must be actual, adverse, corporeal, continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, unequivocal, and within visible bounds, with the intent to possess as an owner. Evidence indicates that George Grantham, her ancestor, only exercised limited possession over a small portion of the property from 1927 until his death in 1965, specifically a house and garden. Chester Grantham occupied the house until his death in 1970, after which the property was abandoned. Although Mrs. Grantham testified that her mother-in-law, Ollie Grantham, lived in the house until 1973, this was uncorroborated. During this period, the Gaddis family continued to farm the land, with no one residing on the property until 1983, when R.E. Grantham occasionally used the old house and its garden. Following R.E. Grantham's death in 1991, his daughter vacated the premises and did not return. A judgment from R.E. Grantham's succession did not mention the old house or the subject area. To succeed in her claim, Mrs. Grantham needed to demonstrate continuous possession since at least 1981, allowing her to "tack" possession to her ancestors, which requires no interruption in prior possession. However, abandonment of possession, as defined by Louisiana Civil Code, results in loss of the right to possess, and the evidence clearly indicates that the property was abandoned in 1970.
George, Ollie, and R.E. Grantham were determined to be "precarious possessors" of the house and adjacent garden, with R.E. Grantham's possession granted by the Gaddis family, who assisted in this arrangement. The Granthams did not gain an interest in the adjoining property until 1992, during which time the Gaddis family actively used the disputed property for farming, including hay baling and managing timber and livestock. In 2002 and 2004, Mrs. Grantham erected fences around the property, but the specific portions fenced were not clearly established in the record.
The evidence presented did not demonstrate the necessary criteria for "actual, adverse, corporeal possession" required for a thirty-year claim of acquisitive prescription, as outlined in relevant case law. Mrs. Grantham cited Louisiana Civil Code Article 794 and the case of Jackson v. Herring to support her claim. Article 794 allows for the establishment of property boundaries based on continuous possession rather than title if held uninterrupted for thirty years. In Jackson, the court found that the plaintiff could claim ownership based on her ancestors’ uninterrupted possession.
However, the court in the current case found that the old fencing cited by Mrs. Grantham was not established as a boundary marker but was intended to contain cattle. Thus, her argument relying on the fencing as evidence for acquisitive prescription was unsupported by the record.
Evidence presented does not establish that Mrs. Grantham had open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the "subject problem area" as required under La.Civ. Code art. 3442. The Granthams abandoned the old house following George's death in 1965 and Chester's in 1970, with no evidence indicating adverse possession against the Gaddis family. R.E. Grantham only began using the property in 1983 with Gaddis' permission, and his use ceased upon his death in 1991. Mrs. Grantham acknowledged that the house was utilized as a "camp" after acquiring adjacent properties in 1992. Water service to the house was requested by Mr. Grantham in 1994 but was turned off in 1995 due to his health issues, and was only reestablished around 2004 or 2005 at Mrs. Grantham's request.
Mrs. Grantham or her agents destroyed old fences on the property, eliminating evidence of possession. Testimony from her son confirmed that the old fencing was not maintained and that he removed it prior to erecting new fencing in 2004, which was not shown on the survey submitted during trial. The surveyor admitted including the old Gaddis pasture fence to bolster Mrs. Grantham’s claim. Despite knowing the house and fencing belonged to Gaddis’ property, Mrs. Grantham lacked record title to the "subject problem area." The court concluded that La.Civ. Code art. 794 and the precedent from Jackson were inapplicable, as there was insufficient evidence of adverse possession for the necessary thirty years. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed and the suit dismissed with prejudice, with all costs assigned to Mildred Grantham. Additionally, Mr. Gaddis' claim for acquisitive prescription was not considered due to jurisdictional limits. A just title must be a written and valid juridical act filed for registry as per La. Civ. Code art. 3483.
