Bradley v. Sharp
2001 WL 947052, 793 So.2d 500 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A subsequent purchaser of immovable property is not protected by the public records doctrine from a prior, unrecorded interest if the purchaser's own deed and purchase agreement explicitly acknowledge the existence of that unrecorded interest.
Facts:
- The Browns issued a prospectus to sell a 159-acre tract, stating that the pine timber could be sold separately with an 18-month harvest contract.
- On November 11, 1997, O. Kyle Bradley purchased all merchantable pine timber on the tract from the Browns via a Timber Deed, which granted him the right to harvest until May 10, 1999.
- On November 13, 1997, H. Wayne Sharp, Jr. signed a purchase agreement with the Browns for the 159-acre tract and its hardwood timber, which stated, 'Buyer is aware that the pine timber is sold on an 18 month contract.'
- On November 24, 1997, Sharp purchased the land via a cash sale deed, drafted by his attorney, which also acknowledged the existence of Bradley's timber contract.
- On December 9, 1997, Sharp recorded his deed to the land.
- On December 22, 1997, Bradley recorded his Timber Deed.
- Bradley began logging operations but had to pause due to rain.
- On July 27, 1998, Sharp denied Bradley access to the property to continue harvesting the pine timber, ultimately blocking the access road.
Procedural Posture:
- O. Kyle Bradley sued H. Wayne Sharp, Jr. in a Louisiana trial court for damages after being denied access to harvest timber.
- Sharp asserted the public records doctrine as a defense and filed a reconventional demand (counterclaim) for damages to his property.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Bradley, awarding him $50,012.30 in damages, and awarded Sharp $1,500 on his reconventional demand.
- Sharp, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
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 the public records doctrine protect a subsequent purchaser of land who records his deed first, but whose own purchase documents explicitly acknowledge a prior, unrecorded timber sale to another party?
Opinions:
Majority - Caraway, J.
No. The public records doctrine does not protect a subsequent purchaser of land from an unrecorded timber deed when the purchaser's own contractual documents acknowledge the existence of that deed. By explicitly acknowledging Bradley's timber rights in both the purchase agreement and the final cash sale deed, Sharp contractually agreed to acquire the land subject to the 'real obligation' created by Bradley's ownership of the timber. The court reasoned that the doctrine is designed to protect innocent third parties from unrecorded interests, not a party like Sharp who had actual knowledge and contractually agreed to honor the pre-existing rights. Citing precedent, the court found that the clear intent of the parties was for the property to be sold subject to the timber contract, making Bradley's failure to record his deed first irrelevant in this context.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to Louisiana's 'race-to-record' public records doctrine. It establishes that a purchaser's actual knowledge, when memorialized in their own contractual documents, can estop them from later using the doctrine as a shield to defeat a prior unrecorded interest. The case emphasizes that the doctrine protects third parties from secret claims, not from claims they have expressly acknowledged. This ruling will influence future property disputes by requiring courts to look beyond the mere timing of recordation and examine the contractual intent of the subsequent purchaser when an unrecorded interest is at issue.
Unlock the full brief for Bradley v. Sharp