Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Landowner Liability
Ownership of a Lake Bed by Acquisitive Prescription
Walt McCarterNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Hamel's Farm, L.L.C. v. Muslow, 988 So.2d 882 (La. Ct. App. 2008), the Louisiana Court of Appeals held that an alleged landowner had not proved ownership of certain property by means of acquisitive prescription, nor had he proved that he held valid title to the property, and thus denied his request for declaratory judgment of ownership.
Background
Hamel's Farm sought to be declared the owner of 12.62 acres of property, which was clouded by the Muslows' title. Id. at 885. The land was platted in 1928 by the Muslows' ancestors-in-title, but had been largely covered by a lake since the 1930s. Id. Hamel's Farm alleged ownership by title and by acquisitive prescription, but its title only dated back to 1941. Id. The Muslows claimed ownership of the property by record title traced back to the sovereign; alternatively, they claimed ownership through acquisitive prescription. Id. Hamel's Farm argued that the Muslows' chain of title was broken when the lake was created by movement of the Red River, but after hearing expert testimony from both parties, the trial court accepted the Muslows' theory that the lake was formed by man-made flooding, and thus held that Hamel's Farm did not have a valid title to the property in dispute. Id. The trial court further found that Hamel's Farm had failed to prove possession of the lake bottom for either the ten-year or thirty-year prescriptive periods required for acquisitive prescription, but that a part of the property located on dry land belonged to Hamel's Farm on the basis of possession in excess of 30 years and the fact that the Muslows did not know that any part of that particular lot extended onto dry land. Id. at 885-86. Both parties appealed the decision. Id. at 886.
Arguments
The Muslows argued that Hamel's Farm had not exercised "continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal" possession of the portion of dry land sufficient for acquisitive prescription. Id.
Hamel's Farm argued that the movement of the Red River caused the Muslows' ancestors-in-title to lose title and its own ancestors-in-title to gain it. Id. at 887.
Analysis and Holdings
The court upheld the lower court's determination that the lake was created by man-made events, because the record did not support Hamel's Farm's theory that the lake was once part of the Red River, and agreed with the trial court that Hamel's Farm's chain of title left "an uncomfortable measure of ambiguity." Id. at 890. Furthermore, the Muslows' theory that the lake was created by man-made flooding was supported by the record. Id. at 891. The court also found that Hamel's Farm could not prove that it acquired the disputed property by acquisitive prescription of ten years, because it did not hold just title and because there was a lack of good faith belief of ownership by the Hamels. Id. at 894. Acquisitive prescription of thirty years does not require goof faith or just title, but "in the absence of a title, possession extends only to that area which has actually been possessed." Id. The court concluded that Hamel's Farm had failed to prove actual "inch by inch" possession of any of the 12.62 acres for the required thirty-year prescriptive period and reversed the trial court's holding as to the part of the lot located on dry land. Id. at 895-96. The court therefore held that the Muslows were the owners of the entire 12.62 acres by valid record title. Id. at 896.
The case was decided on August 13, 2008.