Ford v. Handy and Acquisitive Prescription in Louisiana Authored by Amy Duplantis Gautreaux and Isabelle Rowan
Louisiana
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Ford v. Handy (“Handy”)[1] reiterates the strength of Louisiana’s doctrine of acquisitive prescription, Louisiana’s equivalent to the common law concept of adverse possession. Louisiana’s civil law regime divides property into the following categories: common, public, private; corporeal and incorporeal; and movable and immovable.[2] The corporeal immovable versus corporeal movable distinction is the relevant characterization for acquisitive prescription; “corporeal” denoting whether the thing can be touched.[3] A corporeal movable is a thing that normally moves or can be moved from one place to another.[4] By contrast, an immovable is a thing that does not normally move or cannot be moved from one place to another. Real property is categorized as an immovable.[5] Under Louisiana Civil Code article 3473, ownership and other real rights in immovables may be acquired by the prescription of ten years;[6] this applies to real property, which is an immovable under Louisiana Civil Code article 462. Where the purported owner acts in good faith, ownership of immovables can be acquired in ten years.[7] However, if undisturbed possession persists for thirty years, ownership of immovables can be acquired in thirty years, without good faith or just title.[8] Handy centers around a familial dispute regarding ownership of a one-acre parcel of land in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana. In 1967, Ruby Price Delton conveyed the disputed land to her daughter, Joy, as her daughter’s separate property. Three years later, in 1970, Joy’s husband, Odis Handy Sr., conveyed the land to his parents – without his wife’s signature. Odis Handy Sr. had no ownership interest in the land he conveyed to his parents; it was given to his wife as her separate property. Then, in 1972, Odis Handy Sr.’s parents conveyed the land to their daughter, Ola Mae Ford, and her husband, Sammy Ford Sr.; the Fords assumed the mortgage and began living in the house on the land in 1972. In 1982, Sammy Ford Sr. conveyed his interest in the property to his wife, Ola Mae, making the property her separate property. Ola Mae died in 2000, leaving Sammy Ford Jr. as her sole heir. In 2017, Joy Hardy, the woman who received the property as her separate property from the 1967 conveyance, asserted that she was the
true owner of the one-acre parcel, leading to the suit. In 2018, Sammy Ford Jr. filed a succession affidavit to place the property in his name.[9] Sammy Ford Jr. claimed that he acquired the one-acre parcel of land via ten-year acquisitive prescription.[10] Acquisitive prescription allows a person who, in good faith, acquired property from someone other than the true owner, or a person whose title is defective, to acquire ownership rights to the property. Under Louisiana Civil Code article 3475, the requisites for acquisitive prescription of ten years are: possession of ten years, good faith, just title, and a thing susceptible of acquisition by prescription.[11] Whether land is susceptible to acquisitive prescription is undisputed because land is a private thing, and thus, is susceptible to acquisitive prescription.[12] To acquire a thing via acquisitive prescription, the possessor must have corporeal possession of the thing, or civil possession preceded by corporeal possession, and the possession must be continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal.[13] The Court of Appeals in Handy found support in the record to attribute Sammy Ford Jr. with the necessary uninterrupted possession to satisfy article 3475’s “possession” requirement for ten-year acquisitive prescription.[14] The Court of Appeal discussed whether Sammy Ford Jr. met the “good faith” and “just title” requirements set out in article 3475. Good faith is an objective standard centered on the possessor’s reasonable belief that: (a) the seller owned the property and (b) that the possessor is the owner of the thing he possesses. [15] Based on the facts, the trial court found Ola Mae, Sammy Jr.’s mother, to be in good faith because it was reasonable for Ola Mae to believe her parents owned the property at the time of the 1972 conveyance which purported to convey the property to Ola Mae and her husband, Sammy Ford Sr.. Notably, in 1970, when Odis Sr. conveyed the disputed parcel to his parents, husbands, as “head and master,” could convey community property without their wife’s signature in Louisiana.[16] The Court of Appeal found this relevant in finding Ola Mae in good faith even though the conveyed property was not community property because it still was reasonable for Ola Mae to believe her parents owned the property.
34
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease