George M. Murrell Planting and Manufacturing Company VS Raymond Dennis and Irene Dennis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT Of APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 1341 GEORGE M MURRELL PLANTING MANUFACTURING COMPANY VERSUS RAYMOND DENNIS AND IRENE DENNIS lP Appeal from the 18th Judicial District Court On Parish of Iberville Louisiana Docket No 56 534 Division Honorable J Robin Free John l Delahaye B Judge Presiding Delahaye Plaquemine LA Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellee George M Murrell Planting Manufacturing Co Allen J Attorneys Tedrick K Defendants Jack T Marionneaux Borron Myles Knightshead Myles Myles Plaquemine La BEFORE Raymond for Appellants Dennis and Irene Dennis PARRO GUIDRY AND McCLENDON lJ Judgment rendered 9h k 1 Jy c l I J Y CC7 C j d2 cA SEP 2 1 2007 PARRO J Raymond and Irene Dennis appeal that M George Murrell certain immovable and law we Planting a judgment in this petitory action declaring property claimed by both parties amend the Murrell Manufacturing Company Based judgment affirm the judgment as on our amended is the owner of review of the facts and remand with instructions fACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January immovable 14 2002 Murrell filed a petition for recognition property located in Iberville Parish The as owner of certain petition described the property as A lot of land containing two superficial arpents bounded on the West by land of Peter Egerton North by Jos Henry and East by land formerly of P O Hebert together with all improvements 1 Murrell s petition further stated that ownership of the above described property acquired from George Ross Murrell by an act of sale dated May 15 1913 which recorded in Book 72 Entry 42 of the conveyance records of Iberville Parish acknowledged was that it not in 500 a was Murrell possession of the disputed tract and stated that Raymond and Irene Dennis the Dennises property and had recorded was document were unlawfully claiming ownership of the purporting to evidence that ownership Entry 137 of the conveyance records of Iberville Parish Murrell in Book sought judgment recognizing its ownership of the disputed tract and possession of that property to amending and supplemental petition Murrell described the disputed it In an tract in more detail That certain tract ordering the Dennises to surrender stating that it may also be described as parcel of land lying being and situated in the Parish being the easterly portion of Tract D 2 which tract is shown on a map of survey by Patin Engineers Surveyors Inc dated 03 23 98 and entitled Plat Showing The Subdivision of a 3 09 Acre Tract D 2 a copy of Irene Dennis Into Tracts D 1 Belonging to Raymond which map being hereto attached and hereof made a part or of Iberville and Said easterly portion of Tract D 2 measures 246 00 feet on its easterly line by depth of 300 feet on its northerly and southerly lines and measures 245 5 feet on its westerly line and is bounded front or southerly by Cpl Herman Brown Road northerly by George Murrell et ai easterly by St Paul Baptist Church and westerly by the remaining portion of Tract D 2 a 1 In this opinion we may refer to the property at issue 2 as the disputed tract Said tract of land is also depicted on the attached sketch prepared by Carl Registered Survey dated October 8 1999 and entitled Preliminary Sketch Showing Property Claimed By Murrell By Dennis Made From Abstract Information Supplied By John Delahaye Referenced a copy of which sketch is hereto attached and hereof made a Survey Map 2 part and being that tract labeled Claimed by Murrell Dennis 2 0 Arp F In a Grant second Land amending and supplemental petition Murrell asked for payment of the fair rental value of the disputed tract The Dennises denied the of the owners had been in they did the tract allegations of Murrell by virtue of petitions and claimed they s were acquisition from the McKelry3 estate and peaceful possession of the property since the date of acquisition Although not disputed an expand their pleadings they testified at the trial that they had possessed disputed tract before they actually bought it and that their ancestors in title the McKelrys had previously possessed it for many years After a trial the court concluded that Murrell had through record title of the disputed tract4 and been received by the Dennises for assessed all court costs a was trailer located including experts fees entitled to on that it was the owner 6000 in rentals that had property to the Dennises Dennises contend the trial court erred in its conclusion disputed proved The judgment also In this appeal the concerning ownership of the tract APPLICABLE LAW In Louisiana A property 4th ed N the Yiannopoulos Property 2001 The ownership but who is in 2 possession petitory action is available for the recovery of immovable or brought by who claims the Throughout the record title documents various a person who claims the ownership thereof adversely The document described in the first the relevant properties in 2 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise paragraph will be referred to paragraph will be referred to in spellings are used for the names to obtain judgment in this as this lithe Grant sketch opinion opinion as of the lithe Patin survey parties and previous owners We have chosen the spellings that appear most historically correct based the cash sale to Mr and Mrs Dennis was made from liThe Estate of Although McKellery Agnes Jackson McKellery the 1920 partition document by which tract was acquired by them is signed by Joseph McKelry and Agnes McKelry arpent and 4 A copy of the Grant sketch was is possession of immovable property against another who The document described in the third 3 is one petitory action not in 268 at 540 attached to the judgment 3 the one and on of the Joseph one half recognizing the plaintiffs ownership v Duard writ denied his Inc Co Eymard 94 1991 LSA C C P 93 1278 La 11 11 94 La acquired ownership from 644 SO 2d 390 a previous court finds that the defendant is in title thereto than the defendant thereof LSA C C P art 3653 1181 Carter The defendant imposed the on Cir 1986 burden Therefore possessory action or to 1st Or 9 22 00 SO 2d 648 for the La art 3660 The same a prove prove better possession 705 So 2d 1179 513 14 possession required Griffin The defendant is in v La proof 1st App to put the to initiate the Daigle 99 1942 La 00 3406 La 2 2 01 784 possession when he and his at least one year or civil possession See LSA CC P arts Id Ownership of immovable property may be acquired by the prescription of years by one who for ten years possessor is considerations acquires the property See in LSA C C arts good faith that he is the in good faith under 3473 and 3475 when owner a Methodist possession required writ denied corporeal possession for 3658 and 3660 LSA C C art 3476 1 determines the burden of 506 So 2d 512 1987 725 12 29 97 period of time preceded by corporeal possession same 2 or Mt Everett African acquisitive prescription 769 So 2d 720 ancestors in title have had must by acquisitive prescription if the 1st Cir lack of it plaintiff is the establish LSA C C P see App Scioneaux v 505 So 2d 1132 the judgment recognizing petitory action possession La or 1139 the first issue that must be determined in current 96 2591 Joffrion on a possession of the property possession s plaintiff writ denied more onerous App v owner or Inc Co 638 So 2d 1138 To obtain in a Realty if the court finds that the latter is not in petitory action is the question of Episcopal Church Lafourche App 1st Or 6 24 94 ownership of immovable property the plaintiff that he 3651 art he of the For a just title and possesses it acquisitive prescription reasonably believes thing he possesses ten in a light of objective LSA C C art 3480 Ownership of immovable property may also be acquired by the prescription of thirty years without the need of just title 3486 In a petitory action when prescription the party relying on one or possession party relies title will on in good faith title and the other LSA C C art on acquisitive prevail unless the adversary establishes his 4 ownership by acquisitive prescription 4 5 00 under 756 So 2d 680 record title be may prescriptive title corporeally possessing 33 071 La App 2nd Cir ownership of immovable property eclipsed and superseded by ownership acquired under general codal provisions faith and a Towns v Stated another way Under the lacking good possessor 682 Pace tract for or acquisitive prescription on just title may acquire prescriptive title thirty years with the intent to possess to land a by Such as owner possession confers prescriptive title upon the possessor only when it is continuous uninterrupted immovable peaceable property as is public and and 0796 So 2d 569 La La and confers title See actually corporeally possessed 3426 3476 3486 3487 and 3488 0795 unequivocal Falcone v App 1st Cir 3 27 97 App 2nd Cir possession is the exercise of physical acts of LSA C C arts Springview Country Club Inc 691 So 2d 314 writ denied only to such 316 452 SO 2d 1176 use detention or Brown La v 1982 3424 96 0794 Wood 451 Corporeal enjoyment over a thing LSA CC art 3425 For purposes of that which has been be either inch natural 1982 2d ed of or acquisitive prescription without title possession extends only actually possessed by inch possession artificial boundary or LSA CC art 3487 Actual possession within enclosures LSA CC art 3426 comment possession to must An enclosure is any Revision Comments d citing A N Yiannopoulos Property 99 212 214 in 2 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise 1980 The party who does not hold title to the disputed tract has the burden proving actual possession within enclosures sufficient to establish the limits of possession with certainty by either natural of the extent of possession exercised App 1st Cir 11 7 03 862 So 2d 1010 or artificial marks Secret Cove 1015 L Lc writ denied giving notice v Thomas 04 0447 La to the world 02 2498 4 2 04 La 869 So 2d 889 One is the name presumed to intend of and for another be inferred from all of the to possess as owner unless he LSA C C art 3427 The intent to possess surrounding facts and circumstances So 2d at 1015 5 began to possess in as owner Secret Cove may 862 Possession art 3441 When be transferred can possession is so by universal title to Under these Therefore no interruption of possession provisions privity of contract tacking of possession under the LSA C C transferred the possession of the transferor is tacked to that of the transferee if there has been 3442 by particular title or Secret Cove or estate 862 So 2d at 1015 is an LSA C C art essential prerequisite 451 So 2d at 573 Brown general tacking provisions of Articles 3441 and 3442 tacking is only allowed with respect to property that is included and described in the juridical link between the possessor s ancestor in title and the possessor himself Brown at 573 74 Alternatively under Louisiana Civil Code article 794 dealing with boundary actions title holder may his title for acquire more land than his title calls for one may utilize tacking to to the extent of visible boundaries property by possessing property beyond thirty years without interruption and within visible bounds that under Article 794 articles allow tacking in order to a The difference is prescribe beyond title whereas the on adjacent general prescriptive prescribe to the extent of title Id Secret Cove 862 So 2d at 1015 16 Whether prescription on party has possessed property for purposes of thirty year acquisitive is a factual determination appeal unless based a it is clearly wrong determinations Secret Cove Rosell La v ESCO court and will not be disturbed 862 So 2d at 1015 are virtually 549 So 2d 840 App 1st Cir 9 24 99 844 757 So 2d 705 La Where witnesses regarding the credibility of findings demand great deference and wrong by the trial 1989 Gewalt 707 writ denied are the trier of fact s manifestly never findings on erroneous or Stevens v 99 3063 La clearly 98 2666 1 7 00 752 So 2d 865 DISCUSSION OF FACTS AND APPLICATION OF lAW Because Murrell admitted in pleadings that it disputed property but that the property the burden of To meet that burden of Christopher Gaudet a professional not in a previous owner or by proof Murrell presented the testimony abstractor who had 6 possession of the possessed by the Dennises Murrell had establishing ownership by acquisition from acquisitive prescription of Drew was was prepared an abstract of title for Murrell The abstract which Gaudet said admitted into evidence was prepared for him was along with the Grant sketch Gaudet testified that the abstract of title agreed with the configuration of the relevant properties in the Grant sketch showed east a two arpent parcel of property claimed by Murrell by property owned by St Paul Baptist Church and owned by the Dennises shows that the record According owner of the two it in 1913 and did not transfer Murrell at that time was to Gaudet or described Dennis on bordered the west tract is Murrell s sell it after that date The on by two the abstract of title that he arpent disputed which which the tracts prepared acquired property acquired by as A lot of land containing two superficial arpents bounded on the West by land of Peter Egerton North by Joseph Henry and East by land formerly of P O Hebert together with improvements Gaudet testified that he had traced Murrell tract from 1797 to the present unbroken chain of title to the s 6 Gaudet had also traced the title to the Dennises a November 1920 west of the was transferred to 7 on the east referred to in that He also said that 6 Gaudet complete 7 said s Although was a former He parcels never owner and was of the half one bounded in French disputed on arpent parcel the north The land of Mary was were by Ann as one tract sold to Murrell in 1913 get the in briefs to this court that Gaudet inaccurate The record shows that the you say you had to research through French records The attorney then reiterated Translate And Gaudet said he was unable to make such parcels acquired the and he had to translate them to attorneys argued this statement attorney was Did replied That s correct correct were the Dennises not translate French Gaudet also said all of the subdivided the a one arpent parcel directly Gaudet stated that the Dennises had that the earliest documents Gaudet That three by land of Mary Ann Billieu from the Dennises and translate again s Ann Lee Billieu abstract of title admitted he could question Mary explained Egerton partition a partition is the disputed tract which Gaudet identified currently owned by Murrell 5 In the Agnes Jackson McKelry that parcel Henderson Banks and Billieu property which originated with partition among the heirs of Egerton of disputed tract disputed originally owned by a translation former Governor Paul Hebert who into smaller tracts 8 Although Murrell had already acquired the Billieu property by the time of the Egerton partition the Egerton property was described in terms of the earlier adjoining landowners apparently because it is customary to maintain the exact same description in a transfer of immovable property in order to ensure the accuracy of the transfer Therefore the earlier property description was continued in the partition rather than being updated to reflect the actual ownership Murrell as of 1920 7 and one half arpent parcel from the estate of Joseph McKelry and Agnes Jackson McKelry in 1997 The property description in that cash sale to the Dennises A tract of land being was particularly described in that Act of Petition Entry 932 official records of Iberville Parish Louisiana containing one and one half arpents more or less being located in Section 38 T 10 S R 13 E Town of Bayou Goula Iberville Parish Louisiana also described as being bounded now or formerly on the North by lands of George Murrell et ai on the East by St Paul Baptist Church on the South or front by Cpl Herman Brown Road formerly Hebert Road and on the West by property of George LeBlanc Jr et al 9 sic more recorded in C B 47 Gaudet testified that when the Dennises had their survey done survey included the to the St Paul disputed tract which Gaudet identified corporation designated Murrell for on s Mr Murrell the the Grant sketch Murrell had allowed as Claimed someone He stated that by Murrell to locate a had collected rent from Dennis 2 0 concerning the disputed tract when he received Mr that Mr Little be reimbursed The letter included a disputed sketch also indicated that the easternmost more 9 years use following by an of Mr an Little the adverse claim attorney demanding illegally collecting from him was portion of the disputed tract located was That being used Mr Murrell confirmed that his company He further stated that Murrell had let a parking lot for probably people pick pecans immediately following the on the ten or disputed property description are the disclaimers The parties hereto agree to hold said Notary supplied to Notary by Vendor and Vendee were No title examination was requested or We note also that the administrator of Raymond Dennis Jr the Dennises who as boundaries and dimensions herein and all parties hold Notary herein property Joseph McKellery and Agnes Jackson McKellery represented the estate as the vendor of the property The Estate of son harmless performed harmless for any defects in the title to this was letter from part of the property for Our examination of the cash sale also shows that aware tract where the trailer parking lot by the St Paul Baptist Church property is owned Arp Michael Little 2100 that Murrell had been sketch of the had allowed the church to a the trailer there many years earlier and occupant of that trailer Mr Murrell testified that he became as a property up president of Murrell also testified concerning ownership of the disputed tract number of years a the Murrell as the Baptist Church D Denis Murrell the the Patin survey 8 tract they would give Murrell half of the pecans they picked of the use disputed Mr Murrell said he had been property tract ever since he On cross got examination paying the property taxes out of the on not claim any C1etus the on property that he Langlois disputed tract because the company documents could not done the Patin actually put those documents was simply show on Therefore the were own the Langlois said that the and he told them he very vague ground without a full abstract being property they were possessing claimed on but was the survey the boundaries of the an abstract paid time later the Dennises asked the Patin survey merely established the possession and had nothing to do with actual title out that his notes written Langlois pointed Patin survey the on much some given property lines shown of the Dennises property not were was Mr Murrell stated that he would survey for the Dennises provided to him by the Dennises He said he him to He could not say whether taxes the company did not or owns so registered professional land surveyor testified that he a surveyor who created ownership of the Mr Murrell admitted that he did not know if Murrell particular piece of property anyone of Murrell s aware military service in 1955 property that it just pays what is assessed by Murrell consideration for their as on the upper left corner extent to the of the clearly stated The description given for the tract of land transferred to Raymond Dennis by cash sale on September 10 1997 does not give any dimensions for the one and one half arpents transferred The property lines shown are claimed possession lines as delineated by Raymond Dennis No title warranty is implied or given Irene Dennis Langlois further explained that the was about three half arpents actually shown stated that the were 10 acres about five as Langlois testimony owned on when he first arpents considerably in the cash sale arpents shown designated backwards or by on the mathematical explained 1O Referring more than the approximately underpinnings computations 9 one to the Grant sketch the two tracts to the west of the Dennis totaled the property being claimed by the amount of one of this estimate disputed and was by one his Dennises and one Langlois tract which half arpents own admission while the two was a disputed tract arpent tract shown l1 on the Grant sketch claimed as by Murrell and Dennis The court then asked So they have taken the one and a half plus the two arpents from the Murrell and put it inside their description is that correct Langlois responded in the affirmative It looking arpent and appears The court then commented at the record what half of I ve seen far so Wallace to the that if you look at the a ground it says bound on the east by the church There s your there I can tell you where it is So now what we have is Hargrave linear terminology arpent consist of one linear superficial arpents of 12 arpent deep enough to allow disputed differs from area two a which superficial arpent property was property the length and width of which Hargrave said the property sold superficial arpents So they had foot at the Grant sketch claimed by Murrell and the an the disputed tract equal and disputed was not That s tract was you trace the He said Hargrave confirmed the accuracy Dennises are abstract of title for when the owners of the location at which the sketch showed the superficial to make it one and one half present ownership today of that two arpents to the Murrells Looking a to the Dennises Hargrave stated that he also had prepared tract and had traced the title back to 1860 explained He is the way all the Basically described deeded from Governor Hebert to several individual it to do it engineer and land surveyor testified that he had been in the abstract of this is the surface arpent the civil a property and had studied the Patin survey prepared by Langlois a they and purchased description problem right them possessing in good faith under color of title but they ve got for ten years And there s your problem you re dealing with an my conclusion of plus or minus a property line between the land and the Dennis property to its west Raymond Dennis identified the 1997 act of cash sale in which he and his wife 11 testimony is obviously inconsistent with his earlier statement since Langlois now properties claimed by the Dennises as three and one half arpents rather than the five Either way the area of the claimed property exceeded the he had previously estimated arpents area in the property sale from the McKelry estate to the Dennises described We note that this estimated the to Webster s Third New International Dictionary 120 1968 an arpent is any of various old s French units of land area esp a unit still used in certain French sections of Canada and the U equal to definition one and one half superficial arpents would be 1275 acres about 0 85 of an acre this 12 According By 10 acquired the disputed property along with the property immediately disputed property from the estate succession previous He said by paying taxes from about 1989 of the completed document are Dennis said he He denied possession lines survey the and he identified on the survey delineated as piece of property that on in the cash sale 13 Dennis also said he had hired s His an invoice he we area Dennis 3 09 acres abstractor to never saw his was disputed tract property the 13 the also the stating that the property However disputed son that he wanted the map surveyed was that the whole to him and his wife However although he paid the completed abstract and assumed it had been lived in the house tract on a some of the property he portion of the property that Dennis said he knew the not know what He did not know the by Raymond on being claimed by Murrell size his area We note that the Patin survey states that it owned as provide additional information about the He also said there were trailers on the but he did boundaries next Dennis said he had received a copy of the Grant sketch from attorney Dennis said his were on a employed the Patin survey belonged attorney and he understood from that sketch that the get of any aware Dennis said he understanding of the Patin survey Murrell was to September 1997 and the Patin survey March to his thought not have described provided s was by Raymond Dennis ground the boundary lines and aid the surveyor if necessary abstractor they tried prepared after the cash sale using the property was Raymond and Irene as the on the cash sale Dennis said that the survey shown he heirs of the Billieus were pointing out to Langlois description while simply gave Langlois the property description prepared by his attorneys When shown the dates 1998 Dennis said He read the statement claimed and asked him to area McKelrys Engineers to survey the property lines shown 1990 or disputed property prior to the McKelrys owning it but in the sentence stated that the Patin they had actually possessed the property before acquiring it opened regarding the property owner to the west of the of was an arpent compared as a bit of only knew the to an acre to show the subdivision of designated 11 as he not of them none McKelrys had owned quite purchase included prepared and Irene Dennis into two tracts property but was a 3 09 Tract D l and Tract D 2 When acre tract shown the cash sale less description as encompassing Dennis said he did not know what that meant It could be 50 It could be ten on the he had Langlois just come out He claimed the distant understanding was that paid before 1997 Agnes Jackson McKellery behalf of Mrs c o was so Dennis said there was one far is that had ownership of it as I was trailer couple of years which he shown a on Mr plat a because son was the was At this on it for x me see to pay his sale It belonged but he said his amount of years I to Mr not is passed I could claim So if I go how much the taxes property Little understanding are tax for the next five You pay it and I years I can go and take your property away from you pay it we both pay it and I come and take your property because I paid the taxes Is that your understanding of how the law works 12 was in collecting that clarify stating understanding me Est paying the was ownership by title had to by tax In the next sentence Dennis said he had been point the court asked Dennis going even Reviewing the Grant sketch it less than ten years earlier Dennis and I m a tax stating again name disputed property on property possession of it He did not know redeemed from He admitted that paid the taxes the Dennis then said he paying the taxes on on quit claim and conveyance from the if I understand what your down to the assessor today and say tell Let in paying in her was 75 per month in rent to him until 1997 once and draw opened by his McKelry before he bought the property possession of it in a He also said in the name of or on behalf of the Raymond Dennis Jr he said he did not know whether he about or were showing that in 1992 the property He own name paying him was by paying the taxes in control of it was assessor rent for corners half a family members that s in the succession purchased it he in his McKelry succession or was arpent and as McKelrys who and mark the McKelry concerning the property lines being the claimed possession lines whether the taxes he on lot of was a on Dennis said his taxes It could be less more it to know it was more than an more or Dennis stated he did not understand the notes written by him some before he to to his instructions the Patin survey delineated It could be arpents property descriptions in the McKelry succession documents that he did not tell according half one Dennis said he knew there property and knew enough about based and one Dennis Well responded When yes asked understood that according to the bill of sale by Murrell s attorney whether he he had not owned the property for ten Dennis said years Not with the ownership since 197 no But to my knowledge when this year would be like 16 or 17 years I think that is on it paid long enough for somebody somewhere down the line to understand that somebody has some ownership here And that s the understanding that I I taxes had Dennis said that idea that a during the 34 years he had lived portion of the property was owned in Bayou Goula by the McKelrys before he and his wife bought it that it was on the land from the until the Dennises took However Dennis did not by professional throughout her testimony paying such as it clearing understanding of the land or worked on the name anyone disputed tract licensed Mrs Dennis She reiterated this statement people agreed that she and her husband had started leveling it and putting trailers on it before things on the land hiring the surveyor attorney all licensed professional people to finalize the purchase was to the world that cut possession of it and did that kind of work taxes on the land 16 or 17 years earlier and also did other abstractor and that from the time they owned the property and just had property described that Murrell owned any on it was property owned on was to complete the process by complete Mrs Dennis understood that by her and her husband Hebert Street The She had never Let me ask you a rhetorical question who Q property from the west of yalll to the highway What Q In other words owns that piece of piece they ve got the church and west 13 heard following colloquy between Dennis and the court then occurred A Her they started paying taxes they were holding out obtaining title to it When the Patin survey the care prefaced her testimony with the declaration that all the dealings with done were had any always known personally know and could not McKelry family who might have lived Mrs Dennis the land He said he had McKelrysl property because the McKelrys took grass and trees etc never by Murrell and thought all of it had been owned the he we are going to the Mrs A You talking about the field Church then the property y all are both claiming y all own and the Q property that your son s house is on then some other property and then there is a field going to the highway Who owns that spot between the highway and there A Not titled to anyone Judge Your Honor Okay I thought I understood you to say that and I wanted to be Every piece of property in the State of Louisiana is titled to somebody either an organization some legal entity some individual it is titled to somebody Q clear Mrs Dennis reiterated her husband understanding s question concerning what she thought paying of the law taxes on stating in response to a somebody else s property would do for her I it so At one point property in tax on it because that Mrs that over half arpents Mrs examination cross to them have went one paid the So what it do es for me is that I can own the property gives and more or less over meant I take the Fifth Amendment more because Dennis said that for all of her adult life case and knew that they owned it and possessed they had people McKelrys a time from on that because Eventually she opined that the phrase involved in this recalled somebody else did not pay tax on the chance to keep paying the tax rather than state the date of the cash sale of the Dennis said over me the survey the man said one we and more McKelrys had owned the land including the disputed tract She said she knew them personally in the it Although they lived community clean the land and take It had been when Murrell owned any of the land next to the church for at least care in New Orleans of it never possessed by the Mrs thirty years She Dennis later acknowledged that she did not know Joseph and Agnes Jackson McKelry personally since both of them had died grandparents and knew Althea Coleman long before she some who had at was of their relatives one time One picked pecans 14 but knew about them from her born name on the she was familiar with property but she could was not say what Ms Coleman relationship s to the was McKelry family possibly a first or second cousin After that Murrell reviewing all the evidence in this to Mr it is clear from the abstract of title acquired ownership by title to the disputed tract in 1913 and established its unbroken chain of title to that 2005 case property from 1797 Mr Murrell also testified that he Little to locate his trailer on the as to the date of the trial in June president of the company gave permission property and collected rent from him for of years About ten years before the trial date Church to begin using the easternmost portion of the disputed Therefore Murrell established its the The disputed tract ownership and illustrated was or as owner tract until 1997 Therefore the ten year s title is is not by continuous testimony the Dennises did uninterrupted not begin on until about the same time Therefore their ancestors insufficient to establish that the beyond their title in the the land own mowing it cutting corporeal possession of the they tack because their testimony were property and or both deceased the Neither of the Dennises could establish from 15 was not as Nor could McKelrys Joseph and Agnes McKelry Based property until McKelrys actually possessed the disputed corporeal possession of their that time title and public thirty year period Although their testimony concerning their work possession of their their a peaceable to pay taxes on any of the property fell far short of the requisite thirty years was ten years of applicable specific it also appears they did not begin clearing the land etc by only other way they could have acquired ownership of the property and the late 1980s trees either to acquisitive prescription available to those who unequivocal corporeal possession of the disputed tract for date possession of They did not obtain any semblance of title to the disputed good faith for that length of time supercede Murrell their parking lot as a acts of Baptist by thirty years of corporeal possession with the intent to possess on past by acquisitive prescription possession with title and good faith The its tract Paul only way the Dennises could have satisfied their claim ownership of that property hold title in he also allowed the st period a disputed onto the tract was which by 1922 so tract ceased by personal knowledge that specific persons related disputed tract that one to Joseph and Agnes McKelry could presume on adjoining land belonging possess that land as owner pecans the they on stories doing performed as owners acts on the Simply picking up to someone else does not establish the intent to The Dennises beliefs that the property including the disputed tract community and were ever were based McKelrys possessed all of general on knowledge passed down to them by their grandparents in the As such although the Dennises testified concerning their beliefs these did not constitute facts sufficient to establish their For these the factual reasons thirty we finding of the trial year acquisitive prescription of the disputed find there is note that immovable a judgment affecting case describe it in words we to immovable While that document Since the record contains will amend the judgment However erroneous art 1919 we The judgment of property but merely attached depicts the property an accurate to include this our review property must describe the LSA CC P did not describe the immovable copy of the Grant sketch tract title disputed tract and finding is manifestly property affected with particularity the trial court in this a reasonable factual basis in the record for a court that Murrell owns the of the record does not establish that the tract it does not description of the disputed description CONCLUSION For the above reasons show that Murrell is the owner the judgment of February 8 2006 is hereby amended through record title of that tract of land described A lot of land containing two superficial arpents bounded on the West by land of Peter Egerton North by Joseph Henry and East by land formerly of P O Hebert together with all improvements Said property is more particularly described as That certain tract or parcel of land lying being and situated in the Parish of Iberville and being the easterly portion of Tract D 2 which tract is map of survey by Patin Engineers Surveyors Inc dated 03 23 98 and entitled Plat Showing The Subdivision of a 3 09 Acre Tract shown on a Irene Dennis Into Tracts D 1 Raymond which map being hereto attached and hereof made a part Belonging to D 2 a copy of easterly portion of Tract D 2 measures 246 00 feet on its easterly line by a depth of 300 feet on its northerly and southerly lines and measures 245 5 feet on its westerly line and is bounded front or southerly by Cpl Said 16 as to Herman Brown Road Paul Baptist northerly by George Murrell et al easterly by St westerly by the remaining portion of Tract D 2 Church and Said tract of land is also depicted on the attached sketch prepared by Carl Registered Land Surveyor dated October 8 1999 and entitled Preliminary Sketch Showing Property Claimed By Murrell By Dennis Made From Abstract Information Supplied By John Delahaye Referenced is hereto attached and hereof made a Survey Map a copy of which sketch Dennis 2 0 Arp part and being that tract labeled Claimed by Murrell F Grant In all other respects the judgment is affirmed trial court with instructions to reform its costs of this appeal AMENDED are assessed to AND This matter is hereby remanded to the judgment in accordance with this opinion All Raymond and Irene Dennis AffIRMED AS INSTRUCTIONS 17 AMENDED REMANDED WITH
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
