Taylor v. Fuselier
915 So. 2d 1030 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A buyer is entitled to rescission of a land sale due to a partial eviction if they can prove they would not have purchased the property without the evicted part, considering not only the size of the lost portion but also its location, the buyer's intended use, and the qualitative impact on the buyer's enjoyment of the property.
Facts:
- Gloria Taylor informed Conley Fuselier that she specifically wanted to purchase a corner lot because of its aesthetic appeal and higher potential resale value.
- On October 2, 2002, Taylor purchased a 150-by-100-foot corner lot from Fuselier.
- Unbeknownst to Taylor, Fuselier had previously sold a 20-square-foot portion of that corner lot to the Town of Oberlin.
- Taylor performed a title search prior to purchase, which did not reveal the prior sale to Oberlin.
- After the sale, Taylor installed a culvert and planted trees on the property.
- In January 2003, the Town of Oberlin began constructing a sewerage pumping station on the portion of the lot it had purchased from Fuselier.
- The completed sewerage station was located on the corner of Taylor's lot and included a seven-foot-high hurricane fence with barbed wire, a blinking red light, and produced a noxious odor.
Procedural Posture:
- Gloria Taylor filed a 'Petition to Rescind the Sale of Immovable Property' against Conley Fuselier in the trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Taylor but denied her request for full rescission, instead awarding her a price reduction of $266.00 plus $300.00 for a privacy fence.
- Gloria Taylor, as Plaintiff-Appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, arguing that she was entitled to full rescission.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a buyer entitled to full rescission of a land sale, rather than a mere diminution in price, when a small but qualitatively significant portion of the purchased property had been previously sold to a third party, and the loss of that portion substantially interferes with the buyer's intended use and enjoyment?
Opinions:
Majority - Thibodeaux, Chief Judge.
Yes, a buyer is entitled to full rescission under these circumstances. Louisiana Civil Code Article 2511 permits rescission if the buyer would not have bought the property without the evicted part. The trial court erred by focusing solely on the quantitative size of the evicted portion. The proper analysis is also qualitative, considering the location and impact of the loss. Taylor specifically sought and paid a premium for a corner lot for aesthetic and investment reasons, which she communicated to Fuselier. The sewerage station, with its fence, blinking light, and odor, was built on the most prominent part of the corner lot, directly frustrating Taylor's purpose for the purchase and impinging on her enjoyment of the property. Taylor's testimony that she would not have purchased the lot had she known of the prior sale is credible, especially given her refusal of Fuselier's offer of additional land. Therefore, because the evicted portion was of such qualitative importance to her, she is entitled to rescission, not just a diminution in price.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Louisiana's warranty against eviction, particularly for partial evictions under La. C.C. art. 2511. The decision establishes that the test for rescission is not purely a quantitative measure of the land lost but is primarily a qualitative one focused on the buyer's purpose and the importance of the lost portion to that purpose. It elevates the significance of the buyer's subjective intent, especially when communicated to the seller, in determining whether a partial eviction is substantial enough to warrant rescission. This precedent directs lower courts to look beyond mere acreage and consider the functional, aesthetic, and economic impact of the lost parcel on the buyer's overall use and enjoyment of the property.
