Pure Oil Company v. Skinner
294 So.2d 797 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a real action concerning immovable property, a claimant not in possession who seeks to establish ownership against a party in possession must prove a valid record title good against the world, not merely a title better than the possessor's.
Facts:
- Henry Carl Skinner et al. (the Skinners) and W. Clayton Simonton et al. (the Simontons) both asserted ownership over a 1.5-acre tract of land in Lincoln Parish, Louisiana.
- The Simontons had been in physical possession of the disputed property since 1947.
- The Skinners' claim to ownership was based on a chain of title that contained a 16-year gap between an 1858 government land entry and an 1874 conveyance.
- While the Simontons possessed the land, it was established that they did not have a deed that was legally sufficient to transfer title to the property (a deed translative of title).
- The Pure Oil Company held mineral leases on the disputed property from both the Skinners and the Simontons.
Procedural Posture:
- The Pure Oil Company filed a concursus proceeding in the trial court, depositing disputed oil royalties and citing both the Skinners and the Simontons to assert their ownership claims.
- The Skinners subsequently filed a boundary action against the Simontons.
- The parties stipulated that the outcome of the concursus proceeding would also decide the boundary action.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the Skinners.
- The Simontons appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Skinners only needed to prove a better title.
- The Simontons (as relators) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ to review the Court of Appeal's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a real action to determine ownership of property, does a claimant who is not in possession satisfy their burden of proof by showing a 'better title' than the party in possession, or must they prove a valid record title 'good against the world'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barham
No. A claimant out of possession must prove a valid record title good against the world. The court reasoned that under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 3654(1), when a defendant is in possession, the adverse party must 'make out his title thereto.' This language imposes a higher burden than merely proving a 'better title,' which applies under Art. 3654(2) only when neither party is in possession. Because the Skinners had a 16-year break in their chain of title, they failed to make out a title good against the world and therefore could not dispossess the Simontons. The court explicitly overruled the prior case of Hutton v. Adkins, which had supported the 'better title' standard.
Dissenting - Justice Summers
Yes. A claimant out of possession should only be required to prove a better or 'apparently valid' title against a mere possessor who holds no title at all. The dissent argued that the majority misinterprets the phrase 'make out his title,' which, according to historical jurisprudence, did not require proof of a perfect title against a 'naked possessor.' The dissent contended that the Skinners' title, complete from 1874 onward, was superior to the Simontons' mere possession and should have been sufficient to establish ownership. Furthermore, the dissent criticized the majority for declaring the Simontons owners when they had no valid title, arguing they should, at most, be maintained in possession.
Dissenting - Justice Marcus
Yes. Justice Marcus registered his dissent by stating his agreement with the opinion of the intermediate Court of Appeal, which had held that the Skinners only needed to prove a better title than the Simontons.
Analysis:
This decision significantly heightened the burden of proof for non-possessing claimants in Louisiana property disputes. By rejecting the long-standing 'better title' standard against a possessor without title, the court established a rigid rule requiring the claimant to prove a perfect, unbroken chain of title. This holding gives substantial protection to parties in physical possession, even those without valid title papers, and places a heavy, sometimes impossible, burden on record owners whose historical title documents contain flaws or gaps. The case clarifies the meaning of 'make out his title' in the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, aligning it with the most stringent interpretation of petitory action requirements.
