Liner v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co.
319 So.2d 766, 1975 La. LEXIS 4936, 54 Oil & Gas Rep. 30 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Mere physical disturbances that do not amount to an eviction or a year-long usurpation do not legally interrupt a possessor's 'quiet and uninterrupted' possession required to bring a possessory action under Louisiana law.
Facts:
- Since 1869, Oliver Liner's family possessed a tract of marshland, consistently treating the east bank of Bayou Dufrene as their western boundary, despite their record title only covering land to the east of the range line.
- The Liner family continuously used the disputed land for trapping, raising cattle, and maintaining a camp, marking their claimed boundaries with fences and, after a storm destroyed the fences, with stakes.
- In 1952, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company (LL&E) surveyed its property and placed markers along the range line, which it claimed as the boundary.
- In 1958, LL&E dug a boundary ditch along the range line; Liner appropriated the ditch for his own use by building bulkheads to provide fresh water for his cattle.
- In 1956, Liner granted a pipeline right-of-way to a gas company across the entirety of the land he claimed to possess, including the disputed tract.
- Between August and October 1971, LL&E crews repeatedly entered the disputed area to clean the ditch and remove Liner's boundary stakes.
- In response to the 1971 incidents, Liner and his son continuously replaced the stakes and sent letters through their attorney demanding LL&E cease its activities.
- On February 3, 1972, an LL&E crew, accompanied by sheriff's deputies, again entered the property and removed Liner's boundary markers, which prompted the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Oliver Liner filed a possessory action against Louisiana Land and Exploration Company in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- The trial court found in favor of Liner.
- Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that LL&E's activities had disturbed Liner's possession, thus preventing him from meeting the requirements for a possessory action.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted writs to review the decision of the Court of Appeal.
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 series of non-evicting physical disturbances by an adverse claimant within the year preceding the final disturbance that prompts a lawsuit legally interrupt a possessor's 'quiet and uninterrupted' possession required to maintain a possessory action?
Opinions:
Majority - Dixon, Justice
No. A possessor's right to bring a possessory action is not defeated by mere physical disturbances that do not result in eviction. The requirement that possession be 'quietly and without interruption' for a year prior to the disturbance is not broken by disturbances that the possessor actively resists. The court reasoned that under the Louisiana Civil Code, possession is only lost against one's consent when they are expelled or when they allow a usurper to hold the land for over a year without interfering. Liner was never expelled and did not acquiesce; he continued to use the land, replace his boundary markers, and protest LL&E's actions. Therefore, LL&E's acts constituted 'disturbances,' but not a legal 'interruption' of possession that would bar Liner from bringing his action.
Concurring - Tate, Justice
No. The requirement for 'quietly and without interruption' possession refers to the interruption of the legal 'right to possess,' not merely the interruption of physical tranquility. A distinction exists between a 'disturbance,' which questions or obstructs possession, and an 'eviction,' which terminates it. Citing French and Louisiana civil law sources, the concurrence explains that the right to possess is only lost when an eviction lasts for more than one year. Since LL&E's actions were only disturbances and did not dispossess Liner for over a year, his right to possess was never interrupted, and he was entitled to bring the possessory action.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between a 'disturbance' of possession and an 'interruption' of possession under Louisiana law. It establishes that a record title holder cannot defeat a possessor's rights by engaging in a series of trespasses or acts of interference. The ruling protects possessors by affirming that as long as they do not acquiesce to a usurpation for over a year and are not physically expelled, their possession continues legally uninterrupted, preserving their right to seek judicial protection. This precedent discourages self-help and reinforces the policy of maintaining peace by protecting the party in actual possession until ownership is determined in a separate action.
