Brown v. Hodge-Hunt Lumber Co.
1926 La. LEXIS 2301, 110 So. 886, 162 La. 635 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When ownership of standing timber is legally severed from the ownership of the land, a subsequent tax sale of the land based on an assessment that does not include the timber does not convey title to the timber. The timber owner's failure to have the timber separately assessed does not result in a forfeiture of their ownership rights to the landowner.
Facts:
- On December 4, 1906, the Huie-Hodge Lumber Company (predecessor to Hodge-Hunt Lumber Company) sold a tract of land to G. A. Woods.
- In the deed, the lumber company reserved for itself ownership of all merchantable timber on the land, with rights to enter and remove it, but set no time limit for removal.
- This reservation created two separate estates: the land owned by Woods and the timber owned by the lumber company.
- Sometime after the purchase, G. A. Woods died.
- In 1919, the land was sold at a tax sale for unpaid 1918 taxes, which had been assessed in the name of the 'estate of G. A. Woods'.
- The tax assessment and subsequent tax deed did not specifically mention the timber, and the valuation of the land suggested the timber's value was not included.
- The plaintiff, Gray, subsequently acquired title to the land from the purchaser at the tax sale.
- Hodge-Hunt Lumber Company later entered the property and began cutting and removing the timber it had reserved.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the Hodge-Hunt Lumber Company, Inc. in a trial court for the value of timber the company cut and removed.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $750, recognizing the plaintiff as the owner of both the land and the timber.
- Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to this court.
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 tax sale of land, under an assessment that does not explicitly include the timber, transfer ownership of standing timber that was previously severed in ownership from the land by a reservation in a deed?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, J.
No. A tax sale of land does not transfer ownership of previously-severed timber rights when the timber was not included in the tax assessment. The court reasoned that under Louisiana law (Act No. 188 of 1904), the reservation of timber in the 1906 deed to Woods created two separate and distinct estates: the land and the timber. As separate estates, they should be assessed for taxes separately. The tax assessment for the estate of Woods only covered the land, not the timber. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the lumber company's failure to have its timber separately assessed caused a forfeiture of its ownership, calling the argument 'specious' and a 'novel species of forfeiture of-ownership, unknown to our law.' Therefore, the tax sale only conveyed title to the land, and ownership of the timber remained with the defendant lumber company.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal status of severed timber rights as a separate immovable estate for the purposes of property law and taxation in Louisiana. It clarifies that the burden of a tax sale falls only on the specific property that was assessed, protecting owners of severed mineral or timber rights from losing their property due to the landowner's tax delinquency. The ruling prevents the use of tax sales as an indirect means to extinguish reserved property rights and reinforces the principle that forfeiture of property rights is disfavored in the law and cannot occur merely by an owner's failure to ensure their property is on the tax rolls.
