Falgoust v. Inness

Louisiana Court of Appeal
163 So. 429 (1935)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Louisiana Civil Code, a person who occupies land with the owner's permission and with full knowledge of the owner's title is not a 'possessor in good faith' and is therefore not entitled to reimbursement for the value of improvements made upon eviction.

Facts:

Plaintiff, a landowner, gave her son-in-law, John William Inness, verbal permission on September 1, 1932, to erect a building on her land to operate a garage and filling station.
Inness constructed a garage on the property and operated his business from that location.
Inness contended that the verbal permission was for a definite five-year term, while the plaintiff claimed it was for an indefinite period.
On June 12, 1933, approximately nine months after granting permission, the plaintiff served Inness with a written notice to vacate the property.
Inness refused to vacate the premises, asserting a right to be compensated for the building he had constructed.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, John William Inness, in a Louisiana trial court (parish court) seeking his eviction and the removal of the building he had erected.
The defendant filed exceptions of vagueness and of no right or cause of action, which the trial court overruled.
The defendant then filed an answer and a reconventional demand (counterclaim) seeking $1,823.58 as compensation for the building, lost profits, and other costs.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to vacate the property, but rejected the plaintiff's claim for rent and the defendant's reconventional demand.
The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate 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 person who builds a structure on another's land with verbal permission, while always recognizing the other's ownership, qualify as a 'possessor in good faith' entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the improvements upon eviction under the Louisiana Civil Code?

Opinions:

Majority - Westerfield, Judge

No. A person who builds on another's land with permission is not a 'possessor in good faith' because they lack the requisite intent to possess the property as its owner. To qualify as a possessor under the Louisiana Civil Code, one must have both corporeal possession and the intention of possessing as an owner. The court reasoned that Inness was never a 'possessor' in the legal sense because he always knew the plaintiff was the owner and that his presence was by her permission. His claim inherently recognized the plaintiff's ownership. Because he did not have 'just reason to believe himself the master of the thing which he possesses,' as required by Article 3451, he could not be a possessor in good faith and was not entitled to the special right of reimbursement for his improvements before eviction. The court determined that the most Inness was entitled to was use of the property for a reasonable period, which it found he had received.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the strict requirements for being a 'possessor in good faith' under Louisiana's civilian legal tradition. It establishes a clear distinction between a permissive user (like a licensee or tenant) and a true possessor who mistakenly believes they are the owner. The ruling prevents individuals who knowingly occupy property with the owner's consent from later claiming ownership-like rights, thereby protecting landowners from having to compensate for unsolicited improvements. This precedent reinforces that the possessor's subjective intent—the 'intention of possessing as owner'—is a critical and indispensable element for claiming the rights afforded to a good-faith possessor.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Falgoust v. Inness (1935)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature