Franks Petroleum, Inc. v. Babineaux
446 So.2d 862 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A co-owner can acquire full title to a property against other co-owners through 30-year acquisitive prescription by demonstrating intent to possess for themselves through overt and unambiguous acts, such as recording instruments claiming whole ownership, which are sufficient to give notice of adverse possession.
Facts:
- In 1874, brothers C.C. Colvin and John A. Colvin jointly acquired a parcel of property, becoming co-owners.
- In 1899, C.C. Colvin executed a deed to sell timber from the property, which his co-owner brother, John A. Colvin, signed as a witness.
- From as early as 1900, C.C. Colvin and his heirs (Group A defendants) exercised continuous and exclusive possession of the property by living on it, farming it, and selling its resources.
- In 1937, a judgment of possession was recorded in the Succession of C.C. Colvin, recognizing his heirs as owners of the 'whole interest' in the property.
- In 1937 and 1938, the widow and all but two of the heirs of John A. Colvin executed and recorded quitclaim deeds in favor of C.C. Colvin's heirs. The deeds recited that C.C. had previously purchased John's interest but the original deed was lost.
- Following the quitclaims, the heirs of C.C. Colvin executed and recorded a partition of the property, purporting to deal with the full interest.
- In 1950, heirs of C.C. Colvin specifically told the remaining heirs of John A. Colvin (Group B defendants) that John had previously sold his interest and they had no ownership claim.
Procedural Posture:
- Franks Petroleum, Inc., the operator of gas units on the disputed land, filed a concursus proceeding in the district court to determine the rightful owners of mineral and/or royalty interests.
- The defendants were separated into 'Group A' (heirs of C.C. Colvin) and 'Group B' (heirs of John A. Colvin).
- The district court (trial court) rendered judgment in favor of the Group A defendants, holding they had acquired full ownership by 30-year acquisitive prescription.
- The Group B defendants (appellants) appealed the district 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 a recorded ex parte judgment of possession purporting to convey a 'whole interest' in a property, combined with recorded quitclaim deeds and continuous, exclusive physical possession, constitute sufficient notice to other co-owners of an intent to possess adversely for the purpose of 30-year acquisitive prescription?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Judge
Yes, a co-owner's recorded claim to the 'whole interest' in a property, along with other overt acts, provides sufficient notice of adverse possession to begin the 30-year acquisitive prescription period. Under Louisiana Civil Code, a co-owner can prescribe against another co-owner by demonstrating intent to possess for oneself through 'overt and unambiguous acts sufficient to give notice.' While actual notice is not required for co-owners as it is for other precarious possessors, there must be notice. The court found that the 1937 recorded judgment of possession, the 1937-38 recorded quitclaim deeds declaring C.C. Colvin's heirs as full owners, and their long-standing exclusive physical possession collectively served as such notice. These recorded instruments functioned as an overt manifestation that possession was hostile and adverse to the interests of the other co-owners, rebutting the presumption that possession was for the benefit of all.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard of notice required for a co-owner to establish adverse possession against other co-owners in Louisiana. It establishes that constructive notice, through recorded instruments like ex parte judgments of possession or partitions that claim full ownership, is sufficient to commence the 30-year prescriptive period, even if those instruments are not translative of title. The ruling lowers the burden from proving 'actual notice' (a direct communication) to demonstrating 'overt and unambiguous acts' that put co-owners on notice of a hostile claim. This precedent makes it easier to resolve long-standing, unclarified co-ownerships where one party has acted as the sole owner for decades.
