Mai v. Floyd
2006 WL 3544811, 951 So.2d 244 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a party can acquire ownership of immovable property through ten years of continuous, peaceable, and public possession if that possession commenced in good faith and under a just title. The failure to conduct a title examination does not, in itself, constitute bad faith sufficient to defeat a claim of acquisitive prescription.
Facts:
- On June 19, 1984, the Campagnas sold lots nine and ten to the Alberts.
- In 1986, Raymond Floyd purchased lot ten in a tax sale.
- On May 4, 1990, the Alberts sold both lots nine and ten to the Tabrizis and Susan Zare.
- On July 17, 1991, Susan Zare sold her interest in the lots to the Tabrizis.
- On January 9, 1996, Nhut Van Mai purchased lots nine and ten from Mr. Tabrizi and operated the Premier Grocery Store on the property.
- Mai and his predecessors in title continuously operated the grocery store on the property, and none of them conducted a title examination during their respective purchases.
- In 1999, Raymond Floyd sold lot ten to his son, George R. Floyd.
- In December 2001, Mai discovered the existence of the 1986 tax deed while attempting to sell the property, when the prospective buyer's attorney performed a title examination.
Procedural Posture:
- Nhut Van Mai filed a petition for declaratory judgment in a Louisiana trial court, seeking a ruling that he was the owner of lot ten.
- The trial court found that Mai was in possession of the property but ruled that George R. Floyd was the legal owner.
- The trial court dismissed Mai's petition for declaratory judgment.
- Nhut Van Mai, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, with George R. Floyd 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:
Does a party who, along with their predecessors, possesses a property for over ten years under a just title and in good faith, acquire ownership through acquisitive prescription, thereby defeating the claim of a party who holds a previously recorded tax sale deed?
Opinions:
Majority - Love, J.
Yes. A party acquires ownership through ten-year acquisitive prescription by possessing property under just title and in good faith, which prevails over a dormant tax deed. The law presumes a possessor is in good faith, and the burden is on the adverse party to prove otherwise. Mr. Mai's possession, when tacked onto his predecessors' possession starting from their 1990 purchase, exceeded the required ten-year period. The court found that George Floyd failed to meet his burden of proving bad faith. Citing precedent, the court held that the failure of Mr. Mai and his predecessors to conduct a title examination, which would have revealed the tax sale, does not rebut the presumption of good faith. Furthermore, the single attempt by the Floyds to inform a store employee of their ownership was insufficient to interrupt the continuous and peaceable possession required for acquisitive prescription. Therefore, Mr. Mai acquired ownership of lot ten.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the good faith presumption in Louisiana's acquisitive prescription doctrine and clarifies that constructive knowledge of a recorded instrument does not automatically equate to bad faith. It establishes that a party's failure to perform due diligence, such as a title search, is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of good faith possession. The case serves as a crucial precedent, warning holders of title, such as tax sale purchasers, that they cannot remain passive; they must take affirmative legal action or physically interrupt possession to protect their ownership rights against a good-faith possessor accumulating time toward prescription.
