Case Name: BICKHAM, INCORPORATED v. Otis GRAVES and Billy Joe Graves
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1984-10-09
Citations: 457 So. 2d 1210
Docket Number: No. 83 CA 1058
Parties: BICKHAM, INCORPORATED v. Otis GRAVES and Billy Joe Graves.
Judges: Before COLE, CARTER and LANIER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 457
Pages: 1210–1216

Head Matter:
BICKHAM, INCORPORATED v. Otis GRAVES and Billy Joe Graves.
No. 83 CA 1058.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Oct. 9, 1984.
Richard W. Watts, Franklinton, for plaintiff-appellee.
Ray W. Breland, Bogalusa, for defendants-appellants.
Before COLE, CARTER and LANIER, JJ.

Opinion:
COLE, Judge.
The issue raised in this petitory action is whether or not the trial court erred in failing to recognize defendants' claim of thirty year acquisitive prescription.
Defendant Otis Graves and his brother, defendant Billy Joe Graves, reside in a house and mobile trailer, respectively, on a small portion of a larger tract of land consisting of approximately 39 acres. The en tire tract, located in Washington Parish, was acquired in 1926 by the defendants' paternal grandparents, and in 1978 was owned in indivisión by some 29 members of the Graves family including the two defendants. In June of 1978 a suit was filed by several of the co-owners for a partition by licitation. After considering the matter the trial court ordered the partition and the judicial sale of the property. The tract was purchased by plaintiff, Bickham, Incorporated, at a sheriff's sale on September 12, 1979 for the sum of $26,500. The proceeds of the sale were deposited into the registry of the court for distribution to the various co-owners.
Otis Graves and Billy Joe Graves continued to occupy their respective homes after the sale. In January of 1981, Bickham filed a petitory action, naming the brothers as defendants, requesting the court to declare Bickham owner of the 39 acre tract. Defendants filed an answer and a recon-ventional demand, asking the court to recognize them as owners of the land described in plaintiff's petition and praying for the recorded sheriff's deed to be cancelled and erased from the public records. They prayed alternatively that a boundary be fixed between their property and Bick-ham's property.
After hearing the evidence the trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, recognizing it as the owner of the entire 39 acre tract. Defendants then filed this appeal, arguing only that the court erred in failing to recognize their title to at least a portion of the disputed property by virtue of thirty year acquisitive prescription.
A plaintiff in a petitory action, when the defendant is in possession of the disputed property, must prove he has acquired ownership from a previous owner or by acquisitive prescription. La.Civ.Code art. 531; La.Code Civ.P. art. 3653. Prior to 1981, Code of Civ.P. art. 3653 stated the plaintiff must "make out his title thereto." This was interpreted by the courts to mean plaintiff must trace his title back to the sovereign. See Pure Oil Company v. Skinner, 294 So.2d 797 (La.1974). In cases where the adverse parties proved their'title back to a common author, the courts held the title need not be traced beyond this point. See Clayton v. Langston, 311 So.2d 74 (La.App. 3d Cir.1975). Although the language of the Code of Civil Procedure article was changed, it has been held the requirement of tracing the title back to the sovereign (or to the common author) is still essential. Weaver v. Hailey, 416 So.2d 311 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982).
In the present case the trial court stated plaintiff had proved its title sufficiently by tracing it back to a common author. See La.Civ.Code art. 532; Rivet v. Dugas, 377 So.2d 489 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979). We disagree. The title cannot be traced to a "common author" because after the 1979 sheriff's sale, defendants had no title whatsoever. Therefore, it was encum-bant upon plaintiff to trace its title back to the sovereign. This was in fact accomplished, as shown by copies of the various transfers affecting the property, starting with the present time, going back to the patent in 1813. Plaintiff's burden in this regard is not to prove a perfect title but to prove one "apparently good." Quoting with approval from an earlier case, our Supreme Court, in Badeaux v. Ritre, 382 So.2d 954, 956 (La.1980), held although the plaintiff in a petitory action must succeed on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's when the latter has no title at all he cannot, as a trespasser, take advantage of any defect in the former's muniments of title. It was said, in such cases a title apparently good is all that is required to maintain the petito-ry action.
Once plaintiff has proved his title, the focus is then on defendant's title. See Garrett v. Ernest, 369 So.2d 713 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979), writ denied, 371 So.2d 1340 (La.1979). Defendants have no "record" title, having been divested of it in 1979. Although they claim they have lived on the property for more than thirty years and therefore have acquired the property by acquisitive prescription, we find absolutely no merit to this argument because it totally ignores the fact that defendants' interest was sold in 1979. Moreover, prior to 1979, defendants occupied the land not as mere possessors but as actual co-owners. Although his failure to do so is almost incomprehensible, appellants' attorney makes no mention in his brief of the partition or the judicial sale. In spite of counsel's unexplainable failure to assess the effect of the judicial sale, the sale is the most crucial fact in this case, because at that time defendants lost their ownership interest. Since the date of the sale they have occupied the property as mere trespassers. Obviously they have not acquired any ownership rights by possessing the property since the sale.
We note also defendants inherited their small undivided interest from their father who died approximately ten years prior to the institution of this petitory action. Their mother died only one and one-half years before trial. Defendants' "possession" had been as part of the family unit and existed primarily during their minority as they were just 34 and 35 years of age at the time of trial. Under the facts of this case and within the context of their thirty year acquisitive prescription claim, it is doubtful defendants did more than "possess precariously." This quality of possession does not include the right to prescribe. See La.Civ.Code art. 3490 (in effect prior to January 1, 1983).
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Plaintiff has proved its title; defendants' undivided interest in the property was sold in 1979; defendants have not possessed the property long enough to claim ownership by acquisitive prescription. Appellants are to pay all costs.
AFFIRMED.
CARTER, J., concurs for reasons assigned.
LANIER, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Carter, J.
. The property is described in accordance with a recent survey as follows:
"38.81 acres of land located and situated in Headright 61, Township 1 South, Range 10 East, St. Helena Meridian, Washington Parish, Louisiana, more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
Commence at the Southeast corner of Head-right 61, Township 1 South, Range 10 East and run North 78 deg. 27 min. west, 1573.4 feet to corner; thence run North 00 deg. 14 min. East 1901.5 feet to corner; thence run South 71 deg. 01 min. East, 550.5 feet to corner; thence run South 00 deg. 15 min. West, 1221.0 feet to corner; thence run East 999.9 feet to corner; thence run South 01 deg. 19 min. East, 816.6 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING."
. Home Finance Company of Franklinton, Inc. was also listed in the partition suit as an owner of the property. The suit is entitled Henretta Graves Magee, et al. versus Helen Graves Bell, et al., docket number 44.285A, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington.
. However, we note a plaintiff in a petitory action (or in other actions involving ownership of immovable property) does not prove a title "apparently good" by proving only that he obtained the property by means of a valid deed. In other words, plaintiff in the present case cannot prevail merely by proving it purchased the property at a valid sheriffs sale; it must prove the title by tracing it back to the sovereign, as set forth in Pure Oil v. Skinner, supra. See Tassin v. Rhynes, 366 So.2d 580 (La.App.3d Cir.) writ denied, 368 So.2d 123 (La.1978).