Mire v. Crowe
439 So.2d 517 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To maintain a possessory action, a plaintiff must prove they acquired the right to possess through quiet, uninterrupted corporeal possession for over a year. Sporadic trespasses or minor disturbances by another are insufficient to interrupt this possession unless they are strong enough to make the possessor realize their dominion is being seriously challenged.
Facts:
- On March 16, 1968, Levi L. Crowe, Jr. sold a parcel described as Lot 6 to Karl Mire.
- Prior to the sale, Crowe physically walked the property with Mire and indicated that an adjacent triangular piece of land within Lot 7 was included in the conveyance.
- Immediately after the purchase, Mire took possession of both Lot 6 and the disputed portion of Lot 7.
- Mire had the property surveyed, erected fences along the northern and southern boundaries to complement natural boundaries like a bayou and a gully, and maintained these enclosures.
- From 1968 until 1981, Mire and his family used the disputed area for grazing cattle, raising hogs, hunting, fishing, building a barn, and maintaining a garden.
- During this period, Crowe and his friends occasionally crossed the disputed land to access Crowe's adjacent property and sometimes hunted or fished on it without Mire's knowledge or permission.
- In July 1981, Mire leased the property to John Buttrey for keeping horses.
- In August 1981, Crowe confronted Mire's lessee, Buttrey, claiming ownership of a portion of the disputed land and demanding that Buttrey cease building a corral.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 10, 1981, Karl Mire instituted a possessory action against Levi L. Crowe, Jr. in a Louisiana trial court.
- After a trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Mire, finding he was entitled to be maintained in possession.
- The defendant, Crowe, perfected an appeal of the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First 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 person who, for over a year, corporeally possesses a disputed tract of land by enclosing it with natural and artificial boundaries, building structures, farming, and raising animals, establish the right to possess the property for a possessory action, despite occasional trespasses by the former owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, Judge
Yes. A person who exercises corporeal possession over a property for more than a year acquires the right to possess it, and this right is not lost due to minor, sporadic trespasses by another party that do not seriously challenge the possessor's dominion. The court found that Mire established his right to possess the disputed property through numerous and continuous acts of corporeal possession for over fourteen years, including fencing, building a barn, farming, and raising livestock. These acts were consistent with the nature of the property and gave clear notice of his possession. The court characterized Crowe's occasional use of the land for access, hunting, and fishing as mere trespasses, which were insufficient to interrupt Mire's possession because they did not 'bring home to the actual possessor the realization that his dominion is being seriously challenged.' Because Mire proved he had acquired the right to possess and had not lost it prior to Crowe's disturbance in 1981, he was entitled to be maintained in possession.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for establishing and maintaining possession in a Louisiana possessory action, particularly when possessing land without explicit title. It demonstrates that a fact-intensive inquiry into the nature of the property and the possessor's actions is required. The decision sets a significant precedent by distinguishing between minor disturbances or trespasses and a legally sufficient interruption of possession. It establishes that for an interruption to be effective, it must be so significant that it provides clear notice to the possessor that their claim to the property is being fundamentally challenged, thereby protecting long-standing possessors from losing their rights due to isolated incidents.
