Haines v. St. Joseph Baptist Church
2012 La. App. LEXIS 751, 11 La.App. 5 Cir. 1028, 96 So. 3d 1256 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property informally dedicated for use by the general public as a cemetery is classified as a public thing and is not subject to acquisition by a private party through acquisitive prescription (adverse possession). A genuine issue of material fact as to when such a dedication occurred precludes summary judgment.
Facts:
- In 1928 and 1929, Frank Romano purchased Lots 19 and 20 in the Saddler Subdivision.
- In the early 1940s, the Romano family constructed their home on these lots.
- The structure, as built, encroached eleven feet onto the adjoining Lot 210-A.
- St. Joseph Baptist Church presented evidence that Lot 210-A had been known as the St. Joseph Cemetery and used for burials for many years, with a survey plan possibly indicating its dedication as a cemetery as early as 1921.
- In 1995, Christopher George Haines purchased Lots 19 and 20, including the encroaching structure, from the Romano family's succession.
- In 1996, the Marrero Land and Improvement Association formally transferred title of Lot 210-A to St. Joseph Baptist Church via a Quitclaim deed.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher George Haines filed a Suit to Quiet Title against St. Joseph Baptist Church in a Louisiana trial court.
- Haines filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting ownership by 30 years of acquisitive prescription.
- St. Joseph filed a cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing the land was a cemetery and not subject to prescription.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Haines and denied St. Joseph's motion.
- St. Joseph, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, with Haines as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a landowner entitled to summary judgment quieting title to an encroachment on adjacent land via acquisitive prescription when a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the adjacent land was dedicated as a public cemetery before the prescriptive period began?
Opinions:
Majority - Marion F. Edwards, Chief Judge
No. Summary judgment is improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the land was dedicated as a cemetery prior to the running of the thirty-year prescriptive period. The court reasoned that property dedicated for public use as a cemetery becomes a 'public thing' under Louisiana law, making it insusceptible to acquisitive prescription. Citing precedent like Locke v. Lester, the court explained that dedication does not require a formal act; continuous use by the general public as a burial ground is legally sufficient. St. Joseph presented evidence, including an affidavit from a former pastor and a reference to a 1921 survey, suggesting the lot had been used as a cemetery long before Haines's predecessors could have fulfilled the thirty-year possession requirement. This evidence creates a material factual dispute over when the dedication occurred, which must be resolved at trial.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strong legal protection afforded to property dedicated for public use, particularly cemeteries, under Louisiana law. It emphasizes that informal, long-standing public use can be sufficient to dedicate property for a public purpose, thereby shielding it from claims of acquisitive prescription. The ruling serves as a procedural check, preventing the resolution of complex historical land-use disputes through summary judgment. It forces lower courts to conduct a full factual inquiry when evidence suggests a private property claim conflicts with a long-standing, albeit informal, public use.
Unlock the full brief for Haines v. St. Joseph Baptist Church