Todd v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources
474 So.2d 430 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private party may maintain a possessory action against the State of Louisiana for property classified as a private, rather than public, thing. However, the State cannot be constitutionally compelled to file a petitory action within a specified time frame, as this would violate the prohibition against liberative prescription running against the State.
Facts:
- Robert B. Todd, et al. were in possession of a tract of immovable property.
- Todd contended that the property was formed by accretion, alluvion, dereliction, or reliction from the Mississippi River.
- The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Natural Resources, claimed ownership of the same property.
- The State contended that the disputed territory was the former bed and bottom of the Mississippi River, and thus belonged to the state.
- The State's assertion of ownership constituted a disturbance in law to Todd's possession of the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert B. Todd, et al. filed a possessory action against the State of Louisiana in the district court (trial court).
- The district court rendered judgment in favor of Todd.
- The State appealed to the Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The State sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana (highest court).
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 Louisiana law permit a private party to maintain a possessory action against the State for immovable property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Calogero
Yes. A possessory action may be maintained against the state for private things. The purpose of the possessory action is not merely to facilitate acquisitive prescription, but to protect the peace and stability of possession itself, which is distinct from ownership. The law presumes a possessor is the provisional owner to avoid self-help and place the burden of proving ownership on the party not in possession. Concerns that this would deplete state resources are overstated, as valuable resources like timber and minerals are legally defined as 'products' (which belong to the owner) rather than 'fruits' (which a good faith possessor may keep). However, the constitutional prohibition against liberative prescription running against the state means the state cannot be subjected to the 60-day time limit to file a petitory action, as this time limit is a form of liberative prescription.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Dixon
No. The dissent criticizes the majority for ignoring a recent amendment to the Civil Code because the concept it introduced was not found in older French legal texts or prior Louisiana codes.
Dissenting - Justice Marcus
No. The dissent adheres to the court's previous opinion on first rehearing, which held that one does not have a cause of action to maintain a possessory action against the state.
Dissenting - Justice Blanche
No. The possessory action's primary purpose is to protect the possession that forms the basis of ownership through acquisitive prescription. Since state property can never be acquired by prescription, allowing a possessory action against the state is a 'useless exercise.' Permitting such an action grants the possessor every right and indicia of ownership except merchantable title, which is a distinction without a difference from prescription and violates public policy meant to protect the state's resources.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the possessory action is a viable tool for private citizens to protect their possession against disturbances by the state for private things. It decouples the possessory action from its traditional link to acquisitive prescription, emphasizing its broader role in maintaining public order and allocating the burden of proof in property disputes. By carving out the 60-day petitory action requirement, the Court balances the rights of private possessors with the state's constitutional immunity from prescription, creating a unique procedural path for such disputes. Future cases involving property disputes with the state will rely on this framework, forcing the state to initiate a petitory action at its own discretion to prove ownership, while the private party remains in possession.
