Lacour v. Sanders
442 So. 2d 1280 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A purchaser's knowledge of the death of a vendor's spouse, without more, does not constitute bad faith sufficient to defeat a claim of ten-year acquisitive prescription for former community property sold by the surviving spouse alone, especially when the purchaser is ignorant of the legal consequences of the death on property title.
Facts:
- In 1937, Robert Jett, Jr. and Mary Ellen Scott Jett acquired approximately thirty acres of land as community property during their marriage.
- The Jett and Sanders families were friends and neighbors in a small community for many years.
- Mary Ellen Scott Jett died on December 14, 1959, a fact known to Joseph E. Sanders, who attended her wake.
- On July 9, 1960, Robert Jett, Jr., acting as the sole seller, sold the entire thirty-acre tract to Joseph E. Sanders.
- Sanders, who was unfamiliar with Louisiana community property laws, believed Robert Jett, Jr. was the full owner and had the authority to sell the entire tract.
- Following the sale, Sanders and his family moved onto the property, built two homes over the years, executed mineral leases in 1970 and 1982, and continuously possessed the land as owner.
- Robert Jett, Jr.'s daughters received a portion of the sale proceeds from their father but did not communicate their opposition to the sale to Sanders until filing suit 22 years later.
Procedural Posture:
- Leah Maxine Lacour, as administratrix for the succession of Mary Ellen Scott Jett, filed suit against Joseph E. Sanders in a Louisiana trial court, seeking a partition by licitation of a tract of land.
- Sanders filed an answer asserting the affirmative defense of ownership through ten-year acquisitive prescription.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, Sanders, recognizing him as the sole owner of the property.
- The plaintiff, Lacour, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third 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 purchaser's knowledge that his vendor's wife is deceased, by itself, constitute bad faith sufficient to defeat a claim for ten-year acquisitive prescription of former community property sold by the surviving husband alone?
Opinions:
Majority - Cutrer, Judge
No. A purchaser's knowledge that the vendor's spouse is deceased does not, by itself, constitute bad faith sufficient to defeat a claim for ten-year acquisitive prescription. Good faith is presumed, and the party alleging bad faith must prove that the possessor did not legitimately and reasonably believe the seller was the true owner. Here, Sanders, an uneducated man ignorant of community property laws, had no reason to believe Robert Jett, Jr. could not convey full title. Unlike precedent cases where purchasers were explicitly warned of title defects, the record is silent as to any information that would have put Sanders on notice to inquire further. The seller's potential bad faith is not imputed to the buyer, and a title search would not have revealed the defect as the succession of Mary Ellen Scott Jett had not been opened. Therefore, Sanders was a good faith possessor who acquired full ownership through the acquisitive prescription of ten years.
Analysis:
This case refines the 'good faith' requirement for ten-year acquisitive prescription concerning community property in Louisiana. It establishes that a purchaser's knowledge of a factual event, such as the death of a seller's spouse, is not automatically equivalent to legal knowledge of a title defect. The decision protects purchasers who, while aware of certain facts, are justifiably ignorant of complex legal doctrines like community property succession. This ruling places a higher burden on those challenging prescription to prove that the purchaser had specific knowledge or warnings about the title defect itself, rather than just circumstantial facts that might imply a defect to a legally trained person.
