Case Name: Cecil BROOKING & Elizabeth Brooking v. Victor P. VEGAS & Betty Rives Vegas
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2004-02-04
Citations: 866 So. 2d 370
Docket Number: No. CA 03-1114
Parties: Cecil BROOKING & Elizabeth Brooking v. Victor P. VEGAS & Betty Rives Vegas.
Judges: Court composed of JOHN D. SAUNDERS, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and BILLY HOWARD EZELL, Judges.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 866
Pages: 370–375

Head Matter:
Cecil BROOKING & Elizabeth Brooking v. Victor P. VEGAS & Betty Rives Vegas.
No. CA 03-1114.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Feb. 4, 2004.
Jack Hendrix McLemore, Jr., Attorney at Law, Vidalia, LA, for Defendants/Appel-lees, Victor P. Vegas, Betty Rives Vegas.
Josiah William Seibert III, Attorney at Law, Vidalia, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellants, Cecil Brooking, Elizabeth Brooking.
Patrick L. Boothe, Smith, Taliaferro & Purvis, Jonesville, LA, for Defendants/Ap-pellees, Victor P. Vegas, Betty Rives Vegas.
Court composed of JOHN D. SAUNDERS, JIMMIE C. PETERS, and BILLY HOWARD EZELL, Judges.

Opinion:
| .BILLY HOWARD EZELL, Judge.
Elizabeth and Cecil Brooking appeal a trial court finding that Betty and Victor Vegas acquired title to a small strip of land by thirty-years acquisitive prescription. The Brookings argue that their actions interrupted the running of the thirty-years acquisitive prescription.
FACTS
The property in dispute is located in Concordia Parish, Louisiana. The Brook-ings and Vegases own contiguous tracts of land which were once both owned by a common ancestor, the Panola Land and Development Company. On February 18, 1971, Panola sold a tract of land known as Lot A to May Beard Caskey.
At the time of the sale to Caskey, a fence was located adjacent to the southwestern boundary of Lot A. However, the location of the fence did not coincide with the southwestern boundary of Lot A.
On January 3, 1977, Cecil Brooking purchased from Panola that portion of land adjacent to Caskey's property. Subsequently, in November 1977, Caskey sold Lot A to the Vegases.
In May 1999, and as a consequence of the development of the Brooking property and the preparation of a new plat of survey, the Vegases and the Brookings agreed that their respective surveyors would make separate determinations as to the boundaries established by their titles. The Brookings employed the firm of Jordan, Kaiser & Sessions, and the Vegases hired Gary Caldwell. Both surveys concluded that the titles established the boundary between the two pieces of land at the same location, which was not along the fence line. No one questions that the deeded line is correct.
13As a result of the surveys, the Brook-ings hired Roger Deville in September of 1999, who removed remnants of the fence. On April 9, 2001, the Brookings filed suit to judicially fix the boundary. In their answer, the Vegases alleged acquisitive prescription of the property in question.
A trial was held on April 1, 2002. Reasons for judgment were rendered on March 7, 2003. Amended reasons were rendered on April 4, 2003, and judgment was signed that same day in favor of the Vegases finding that they established title to the disputed property by thirty-years acquisitive prescription. The Brookings appeal that judgment asserting four assignments of error. These errors relate to the trial court's finding that the Vegases had proven title by thirty-years acquisitive prescription.
ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION
The issues in this case center around the fence on the property that was obviously placed on the property when Panola was the owner of both pieces. While admitting the title ownership of the Brookings to the disputed piece of land, the Vegases alleged that they and their ancestor-in-title, Cas-key, possessed the disputed piece of land up to the fence for the purposes of thirty-years acquisitive prescription. They claim that prescription began to run on February 18, 1971, when Caskey acquired the property and began possessing the land up to the fence. The Brookings argue that they interrupted prescription before the thirty-years ran by conducting a survey and removing the visible portions of the fence.
"Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership or other real rights by possession for a period of time." La. Civ.Code art. 3446. "Ownership and other real rights in immovables may be acquired by the prescription of thirty years without the need of just title or possession in good faith." La.Civ.Code art. 3486. "For purposes of acquisitive prescription without title, possession extends only to that lawhich has been actually possessed." La. Civ.Code art. 3487. "Acquisitive prescription is interrupted when possession is lost." La.Civ.Code art. 3465. "The interruption is considered never to have occurred if the possessor recovers possession within one year or if he recovers possession later by virtue of an action brought within the year." Id. "Possession is lost when the possessor manifests his intention to abandon it or when he is evicted by another by force or usurpation." La.Civ. Code art. 3433.
"When a party proves acquisitive prescription, the boundary shall be fixed according to limits established by prescription rather than titles." La.Civ.Code art. 794. "If a party and his ancestors in title possessed for thirty years without interruption, within visible bounds, more land than them title called for, the boundary shall be fixed along these bounds." Id.
In discussing the burden of proof in an action to establish acquisitive prescription this court stated:
It is well settled that the party pleading acquisitive prescription bears the burden of proving all of the facts that are essential to support it. The proof required to fix a boundary according to acquisitive prescription is the same proof required to prove ownership in a petitory action based on 30 year acquisitive prescription, i.e., continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public and unequivocal possession with a positive intention to possess as owner.
Mistric v. Kurtz, 610 So.2d 226, 230 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992), writ denied, 612 So.2d 102 (La.1993).
The interruption of acquisitive prescription is by acknowledgment, by filing suit, or when possession is lost. Pisón, Inc. v. Jackson, 633 So.2d 234 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993).
The Brookings do not disagree with the trial court's findings that the Vegases' ancestor-in-title, Caskey, exercised acts of possession over the disputed piece of land, l4in the form of mowing and using the fence to keep horses locked up. The Ve-gases continued to exercise control over the disputed piece of land. This included placing plants and exotic palms near the fence. However, they claim that the Ve-gases lost the right to possess the land before the thirty years had passed.
Possession of the disputed strip of land commenced on February 18, 1971, so if possession was not interrupted, the Vegas-es would have acquired ownership by thirty-years acquisitive prescription on February 19, 2001. Therefore, we will consider the Brooking's arguments and whether their actions interrupted the Vegases' possession of the disputed strip of land so as to interrupt the acquisitive possession.
There is no doubt that both the Brookings and the Vegases conducted surveys, both indicating that the fence line was not the boundary. However, this alone would not be sufficient to interrupt prescription as title is not at issue when establishing thirty-years acquisitive prescription. It is clear from the record that the Vegases continued to possess the land up to the fence line. However, the fence did deteriorate over the years with only some remnants of the fence remaining, a few posts and small amounts of wire were left on the ground. The section of the fence near the lake had been gone for some time.
The Brookings hired Roger Deville in 1999 to remove the remnants of the fence. The trial court found that Deville removed three fence posts but did not remove any fence posts in the Vegases' plants. Deville testified that he removed as much of the fence as he could. He tried his best to avoid the Vegases' plants but removed some of the palms because they were actually growing in the fenced area. It was Tom Butcher who testified that he did some work for Mr. Brooking and removed three fence posts. Mr. Brooking also testified that two to three fence posts were removed at a later time, after Deville had removed the posts.
IfiMr. Vegas admitted that he quit maintaining the fence when Mr. Brooking took cattle off his property. He did not go out and replace the fence that had been torn down. However, Mr. Vegas testified that, even after Mr. Brooking removed the fence, he continued to mow up to the same point as he had before.
John Swalm, a surveyor employed by Jordan, Kaiser and Sessions who performed the survey in May 1999, testified about the condition of the fence when he surveyed the property. He explained that, at the time of the survey, he did not know that there was a dispute concerning the fence line. However, he did remember the condition of the fence line and told the court that there were more than 10 fence posts but less than 30. He stated that it was not much of fence and not really maintained very well and it was located about five feet on the Brooking side. Most of the wire was on the ground.
The trial court found that the removal of the fence posts by the Brookings was not sufficient to interrupt prescription. It further found that the Vegases continued to exercise control over the disputed land.
In Bourman v. Blankenship, 34,558 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/4/01), 785 So.2d 134, writ denied, 01-1354 (La.6/22/01), 794 So.2d 794, the second circuit agreed with the trial court that the act of bulldozing a fence interrupted the defendants' posses sion for the purposes of acquisitive prescription. We disagree with the trial court in this case and find that the Brookings' actions in removing the fence remnants also served to interrupt the Vegases' possession of the disputed property.
After the disturbance of their possession, the Vegases were required to recover possession with one year of the disturbance in order to continue their possession for purposes of acquisitive prescription. La.Civ.Code art. 8465. Mr. Vegas testified that he continued to mow up to where the fence line had been even after the fence Rremnants were removed. The palms and other plants that had been planted in the area of the fence were left intact when the fence remnants were removed. While Mr. Deville may have removed some of the plants when he removed the fence remnants, he did not remove them all and specifically tried to avoid them. We find that the trial court did not err in finding that the Ve-gases continued to exercise acts of possession in the area where the fence once existed and, therefore, recovered possession of the disputed land. These acts of possession continued even after the fence was removed. Furthermore, the Brook-ings did not file suit in this matter until after the thirty-years acquisitive prescriptive had run from the date Caskey bought the property.
For these reasons we affirm the ruling of the trial court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Cecil and Elizabeth Brooking.
AFFIRMED.
SAUNDERS, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.