Charles Tolmas, Inc. v. Lee
2005 WL 1278356, 903 So.2d 661, 2005 La. App. LEXIS 1464 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Ownership of immovable property may be acquired through thirty years of acquisitive prescription by maintaining actual, corporeal possession that is continuous, uninterrupted, public, and unequivocal within visible bounds, even without a formal enclosure like a fence.
Facts:
- Charles Tolmas, Inc. (Tolmas) and Calvin Lee (Lee) owned adjacent commercial properties.
- In 1951, Lee constructed a dry cleaning building on his property very near the boundary line with the Tolmas property.
- Contemporaneously with the building's construction in 1951, Lee installed a permanent sign for his business on a concrete base and created a parking area of concrete and shells for customers and employees on a triangular portion of the Tolmas property.
- From 1951 onward, the Lee family continuously and exclusively used this parking area for their business operations and for personal events, such as roping it off for parade-goers.
- The Lee family maintained the area by regularly cutting the grass around the parking lot, creating a visible distinction from the adjacent, often overgrown Tolmas lot.
- Members of the Tolmas family were aware of the Lees' use of the land for parking for decades but did not take formal action to stop it.
- In the late 1980s, a Tolmas family member contacted the Lee family regarding their use of the property, specifically concerning new awnings and planters.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Tolmas, Inc. filed a declaratory action against Calvin Lee in the trial court, seeking a judgment declaring that Lee had no ownership rights in a portion of Tolmas's land.
- Lee filed Exceptions of Liberative and/or Acquisitive Prescription.
- The trial court found in favor of Lee, ruling that Lee had acquired the entire disputed triangular portion of the property through thirty-year acquisitive prescription.
- Charles Tolmas, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth 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 a party acquire ownership of an adjacent parcel of land through thirty-year acquisitive prescription by using it openly, continuously, and publicly for business purposes, such as creating a parking area and placing a sign, without erecting a formal enclosure?
Opinions:
Majority - Daley, J.
Yes, a party acquires ownership through thirty-year acquisitive prescription for the specific portion of land they possessed openly, continuously, and publicly for business purposes, but not for adjacent areas used more sporadically. The evidence established that the Lee family had openly and publicly used the concrete and gravel parking area since the construction of their building in 1951. This use was sufficient to constitute possession under Civil Code Article 3476 because it was continuous, uninterrupted, public, and unequivocal. Citing Cheramie v. Cheramie, the court affirmed that a formal enclosure like a fence is not required; possession is determined by the nature and use of the land. The installation of a permanent sign and the creation and continuous use of a parking lot for over 30 years met this standard. However, the court amended the trial court's judgment, finding that merely roping off a larger area for occasional parades and cutting the grass were insufficient acts of possession to acquire the entire triangular parcel. Therefore, the Lees acquired ownership only of the concrete and gravel parking area as depicted in a 1985 survey, not the entire claimed area.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'visible bounds' and 'public possession' requirements for thirty-year acquisitive prescription under Louisiana law. It establishes that permanent improvements consistent with ownership, such as paving a parking lot and installing a business sign, can satisfy the possession requirement without a formal enclosure. The ruling also underscores that the scope of the property acquired is strictly limited to the area that was continuously and unequivocally possessed, not a larger area subject to only intermittent use. This case provides a key precedent for distinguishing between acts that are sufficient to establish ownership through prescription versus those that are too sporadic or equivocal, like occasional grass-cutting or temporary roping.
