Weaver v. Hailey
416 So.2d 311 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a petitory action under Louisiana law, a plaintiff claiming ownership of an immovable property against a defendant in possession must prove a title good against the world. Tracing title back only to an immediate predecessor is insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof required by Louisiana Civil Code Article 531.
Facts:
- In 1946, H. L. Weaver purchased property described as one-half acre from Robert Richard.
- Immediately after the purchase, H. L. Weaver and his brother, L. C. Weaver, built a small clubhouse on the land, which they sold and had moved off the property in 1949.
- In 1952, E. D. Mallett, the Haileys' predecessor in title, constructed a fence around his property that enclosed the tract later claimed by the Weavers.
- In 1953, Lee Roy Hailey and his wife purchased a tract from Mallett described as "Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter... less one acre," and they continuously maintained the fence built by Mallett.
- In October 1980, Robert Richard executed a correction deed to H. L. Weaver, changing the description in the 1946 sale to one acre.
- Shortly thereafter, in October 1980, H. L. Weaver sold the one-acre parcel as described in the correction deed to his brother, the plaintiff L. C. Weaver.
Procedural Posture:
- L. C. Weaver filed a petitory action against Jackie Roy Hailey and others in the district court (trial court) to establish ownership of a one-acre tract of land.
- The Haileys filed an answer claiming ownership by acquisitive prescription but did not file a reconventional demand for recognition of their ownership.
- The district court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, L. C. Weaver, recognizing him as the owner of the one-acre tract.
- The defendants, the Haileys, appealed the judgment of the district court to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third 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:
Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 531, does a plaintiff in a petitory action against a defendant in possession meet his burden of proof by proving he acquired ownership from a previous owner, or must he prove a perfect title good against the world?
Opinions:
Majority - Culpepper, J.
No. A plaintiff in a petitory action against a defendant in possession does not meet his burden of proof by merely tracing title to an immediate predecessor; he must prove ownership good against the world. The court reasoned that the 1979 adoption of Civil Code Article 531, which requires a plaintiff to prove he "acquired ownership from a previous owner," did not legislatively overrule the controlling jurisprudential rule from Pure Oil Company v. Skinner. That rule requires a plaintiff to prove a perfect record title back to the sovereign or ownership by acquisitive prescription. The legislative intent, confirmed by subsequent amendments and official comments, was to codify, not eliminate, this high standard of proof. Because the plaintiff, L. C. Weaver, only deraigned his title back to a 1946 sale from Robert Richard and not back to the sovereign, he failed to sustain his burden of proving ownership.
Dissenting - Doucet, J.
Yes. A plaintiff in a petitory action satisfies his burden of proof under the plain language of Civil Code Article 531 by proving he acquired ownership from a previous owner. The majority imposes a burden of proof unwarranted by the clear text of the law, which is free from ambiguity. The court should not disregard the statute's plain letter under the pretext of pursuing its spirit by relying on non-binding legislative comments to resurrect the old, harsher standard from Pure Oil. The plaintiff proved he acquired ownership from a previous owner, H. L. Weaver, who had purchased it from Robert Richard, thereby satisfying the statute as written.
Dissenting in part - Swift, J.
This opinion agrees with the majority's decision on the petitory action issue but dissents from the refusal to recognize the defendants' ten-year prescriptive title. The dissent argues that the rule from Harrill v. Pitts, which holds that an ambiguous exception in a deed benefits the grantee, should have been applied to grant the defendants ownership of the disputed one-acre tract via acquisitive prescription.
Analysis:
This case is a significant interpretation of the 1979 revisions to the Louisiana Civil Code concerning the burden of proof in property ownership disputes. The court's decision clarifies that the legislature did not intend to lower the traditionally high bar for plaintiffs in petitory actions, thereby cementing the precedential value of the Pure Oil Co. v. Skinner 'title good against the world' standard. This holding reinforces the stability of possession by requiring those who seek to oust a possessor to present a nearly unassailable chain of title. The strong dissent highlights the tension between strict textualism and interpretations based on legislative intent and history, a recurring theme in statutory analysis.
