Folse v. Triche
113 La. 915, 1904 La. LEXIS 715, 37 So. 875 (1904)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property that is immovable by destination, such as machinery installed for the service of a building or land, reverts to its original status as movable property when it is detached from the realty and rendered unfit for service by an accidental event, such as a fire.
Facts:
- A husband owned a tract of land with a sugar house on it.
- The sugar house contained machinery and appliances used for its operation, which were legally classified as immovables by destination.
- The plaintiff, the owner's wife, held a legal mortgage over the land, which included the sugar house and its machinery.
- A fire destroyed the sugar house, leaving the machinery and appliances inside in a 'demolished and ruined condition.'
- The ruined machinery was no longer fit for service in the sugar house, although its metal was still valuable.
- A defendant, who was an ordinary judgment creditor of the husband, seized the ruined machinery to satisfy a separate debt.
- The plaintiff wife sought to prevent the defendant from selling the machinery separately, claiming it was still part of the immovable property subject to her mortgage.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, a judgment creditor, seized the ruined machinery under a writ of fieri facias.
- The plaintiff, a mortgage creditor, filed suit in the district court (trial court) to enjoin the separate sale of the machinery.
- The district court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding the machinery remained immovable property subject to her mortgage.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal certified a question of law to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana, instead of just answering the question, ordered the entire case record to be sent up for its direct consideration and final decision.
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 machinery, once considered immovable by destination because it was used for the service of a sugar house, become movable property again when the sugar house is destroyed by fire and the machinery is left in a demolished and ruined condition, unfit for its original purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Land, J.
Yes, the machinery becomes movable property. The legal fiction that classifies a movable object as an immovable by destination lasts only as long as the conditions that create it continue to exist. When an object, from any cause, ceases to be of service to the land or is detached from the building, it loses its immovable character. The court analogized the ruined machinery to materials from a demolished building, which are legally considered movables under Civil Code art. 476. The court reasoned that it does not matter whether the detachment is caused by an intentional act of the owner or by a fortuitous event like a fire. Once the machinery was rendered unfit for service by the fire, there was no longer any reason for the continuation of the legal fiction, and the machinery reverted to its true nature as movable property, not subject to the real estate mortgage.
Dissenting - Nicholls, J.
No, the machinery does not become movable property. The mortgage creditor's rights are vested in every part of the mortgaged building and its accessories. These vested rights are not lost due to a fortuitous event like a fire, especially when a valuable part of the property, such as the ruined machinery, remains physically on the mortgaged land.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the legal status of an immovable by destination is not permanent and depends on its physical condition and functional relationship to the land. The court established that mobilization can occur not only through the owner's intentional act of removal but also through an accidental event that renders the property unfit for its designated service. This ruling impacts secured transactions and property law by limiting the scope of a real estate mortgage after the destruction of improvements, potentially leaving mortgagees with less security than anticipated if valuable components are damaged and revert to movable status.
