Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co.
231 So.2d 347, 255 La. 347 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's public records doctrine, an unrecorded lease that establishes separate ownership of standing crops is not effective against and cannot be asserted against third parties. To be binding on third parties, any instrument relating to or affecting immovable property must be filed for registry in the parish where the land is situated.
Facts:
- Nolton Andrepont entered into a verbal lease with the heirs of A. A. Bundick to farm a tract of land.
- The terms of the verbal lease stipulated that Andrepont would receive 80% of the harvested crop, with 20% serving as rent to the landowners.
- Subsequent to the verbal lease, the landowners executed a written oil lease on the same property with the defendants, granting them rights to explore for oil.
- The defendants' oil lease was duly recorded in the public records.
- The defendants' drilling operations on the property caused damage to Andrepont's standing soybean crop.
- The defendants paid the landowners $125.00 for damages and received a release from them, but made no payment to Andrepont for his damaged crops.
Procedural Posture:
- Nolton Andrepont sued the defendants for crop damages in the district court (court of first instance).
- The district court granted recovery to Andrepont.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the district court's decision and dismissed Andrepont's suit.
- Andrepont, as applicant, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a tenant farmer's unrecorded verbal lease, which grants him ownership of the crops, have legal effect against a subsequent, recorded mineral lessee who is a third party to the farm lease?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanders, J.
No. A tenant's unrecorded verbal lease has no legal effect against a third-party mineral lessee who relies on the public records. Louisiana law (LSA-R.S. 9:2721) dictates that any instrument 'relating to or affecting immovable property,' which includes a lease that separates crop ownership from land ownership, must be recorded to be binding on third persons. Because Andrepont's lease was verbal and unrecorded, he cannot assert his separate ownership of the standing crop against the defendants, who are third persons. As to the defendants, the standing crop is legally considered part of the land, and therefore Andrepont cannot recover for damages to it.
Dissenting - Barham, J.
Yes. The dissent disagrees with the majority's conclusion and would adhere to the court's original, pre-rehearing decision. The dissent concurs that a surface lease separating crop ownership from land ownership is an instrument 'relating to or affecting immovable property' and is therefore subject to the public records registry statute (R.S. 9:2721). However, the dissent disagrees with the ultimate application of this principle and the resulting judgment against the tenant farmer.
Analysis:
This decision rigorously upholds the integrity of Louisiana's public records doctrine, establishing that unrecorded interests in immovable property are unenforceable against third parties who rely on those records. It clarifies that while standing crops may be considered 'movable' property, the lease agreement that creates this separate ownership is an instrument 'affecting immovable property' and must be recorded. This precedent serves as a critical warning to all parties with interests in real property, especially tenants, that failing to record their leases can render their rights, including ownership of crops, completely unprotected against subsequent, recorded interests held by third parties.
Unlock the full brief for Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co.