Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether court of appeal erred in affirming the trial court's ruling granting summary judgment. That judgment confirmed and quieted title to a tax purchaser on the basis that the former property owner failed to file a separate action or reconventional demand to institute a proceeding to annul the tax sale within six months from the date of service of the petition and citation to quiet title. Upon review, the Court concluded the former property owner's claim that the tax sale was null and void was timely made and the former property owner had sufficiently established that there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether the sheriff provided notice of the tax delinquencies and the tax sale to the record property owner as required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (failure of which would have rendered the tax sales entirely null and void). Accordingly, the Court found summary judgment to quiet tax titles in favor of the tax purchaser was not warranted in this case.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the doctrine of "contra non valentem" applied to suspend a ten year liberative prescriptive period applicable to an action by a mineral interest owner against the operator of a unit well who failed to pay the owner share of the proceeds for mineral production. Plaintiff James Wells filed suit after being contacted by a landman concerning leasing of his mineral interest in lands inherited from his parents. In the 1950s, Plaintiff's parents sold the land but reserved the mineral interests. Plaintiff's mother executed a mineral lease which was released a few years later because the well drilled resulted in a dry hole. However, the landowners executed their own mineral lease, which achieved production in 1965, and continued producing until 2007. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Donald Zadeck and Zadeck Energy Group and several other companies who were allegedly conducting oil and gas exploration and production activities from his unleased unitized acreage without tendering to him (or his parents) their rightful share of proceeds from the production. In response, Zadeck filed a Peremptory Exception of Prescription, urging that Plaintiff's claim to recover payments was a quasi contract that prescribed ten years from Zadeck's successor's cessation of involvement with the "dry hole." Plaintiff argued that the doctrine of "contra non valentem" applied to suspend the running of prescription since he had no knowledge of the existence of the mineral interests or production until December 2008. Plaintiff contended that his ignorance was not attributable to any fault of his own, and he clearly exercised due diligence in discovering the relevant facts once he learned from the landman that he owned the mineral interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the doctrine of contra non valentem applied to suspend the running of prescription because the mineral interest owners did not know nor reasonably should they have known of the mineral production until December 2008.

The issue presented in this case arose in connection with a motion to rank creditors in a suit for executory process. DDS Construction, LLC developed a subdivision in Reserve. To fund that development, DDS obtained various loans from First National Bank. To secure its repayment of those loans, DDS granted First National a "Multiple Indebtedness Mortgage" over individual lots located in the subdivision. One property, Lot 8 Square A, was at the center of this controversy. The district court held a notarial act which cancelled the lot's mortgage could be corrected by an act of correction under La. R.S. 35:2.1 and First National, the lender which erroneously cancelled the mortgage, maintained its rank relative to a subsequent mortgage under the statute's provisions. The court of appeal disagreed, holding that under these facts the subsequent mortgage primed the mortgage by the First National, which must be ranked as of the time of the act of correction. After review, the Supreme Court held that the court of appeal erred and reversed, reinstating the ruling of the district court.

A tract of land had been in the Roberts family for decades. A fence ran east to west in the middle of the property, and had been undisturbed for over thirty years. The amount of land north of the fence was approximately fifteen acres. The owners of the adjacent property, The Morgans, adversely possessed these fifteen acres for more than thirty years. In 2002, the Succession of Marie Morgan ("the Succession") sold its land to the Loutre Land and Timber Company (Loutre) through a full-warranty deed, which was recorded later that year. Edward Roberts conducted a survey of the land he inherited from his parents. His share included the fifteen acres adversely possessed by the Succession. He sought a quitclaim deed from the Succession to recognize his right to those fifteen acres. Despite the Succession's attorney informing Mr. Roberts that the land had been sold, the Succession executed a quitclaim to Mr. Roberts in 2003, which Mr. Roberts subsequently recorded. Later that year, Mr. Roberts destroyed pine seedlings within the fifteen acres along the fence. Loutre filed suit asserting its ownership of land and sought damages for the destruction to the trees. The trial court entered judgment on behalf of Loutre, and Mr. Roberts appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly determined that Loutre was the proper owner of the fifteen acres, and reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.