Case Name: Susan Hadley, wife of Percy BUTLER v. Glenice Hensley, wife of and Joseph HENSLEY
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1976-01-13
Citations: 332 So. 2d 315
Docket Number: No. 7166
Parties: Susan Hadley, wife of Percy BUTLER v. Glenice Hensley, wife of and Joseph HENSLEY.
Judges: Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BEER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 332
Pages: 315–318

Head Matter:
Susan Hadley, wife of Percy BUTLER v. Glenice Hensley, wife of and Joseph HENSLEY.
No. 7166.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 1976.
On Rehearing Granted March 16, 1976.
On Rehearing May 3, 1976.
Rehearing Denied May 18, 1976.
Vial, Vial & Lemmon, Leon C. Vial, III, Hahnville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Reserve, for defendants-appellants.
Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BEER, JJ.

Opinion:
BEER, Judge.
Notwithstanding previous litigation between the parties to this appeal concerning use of the same tract of land that is here involved, the issue with which we are presently concerned is quite narrow: Preter-mitting any consideration of the validity of appellee's recent acquisition of an undivided partial interest in the property in question which is conceded for this appeal, we only pass upon the correctness of the trial court's judgment ordering the appellants to vacate the premises at the insistence of ap-pellee, the owner of a substantially greater undivided interest in the same property.
The trial court factually determined that Glenice Hensley, wife of and Joseph Hensley (defendants-appellants) "acquired a small undivided interest" in the subject property but concluded that such ownership did not constitute "the interest required by law" and ordered them evicted. The trial court also noted that Mr. and Mrs. Hensley were on the property as a result of a lease which had been confected "without the unanimous consent of all owners."
The record signals the distinct possibility that Susan Hadley, wife of Percy Butler (plaintiff-appellee) is being ill-used by her co-owners who have very recently sold a small portion of their fractional undivided interest to appellants.
However, co-owners (which defendants-appellants are) do have the right to use and occupy common property and cannot ordinarily be divested of possession by an action to evict. See: La.C.C. Article 494, Coon v. Miller, 175 So.2d 385 (La.App.2nd Cir. 1965) writ refused, 247 La. 1089, 176 So.2d 145.
Thus, even though something less than complete good faith might properly describe the actions that ultimately led to the acquisition of defendants-appellants' small fractional interest, we must question the trial court's determination that such interest, solely by reason of its small fractional part of the whole, is not entitled to the same rights as the larger fractional interests.
However, the record shows that plaintiff-appellee was, at all times pertinent, exercising a degree of use and occupancy of the particular portion of the long, thin tract of land in question. She had fenced it in and was making use of it along with the immediately adjoining portion which she owned outright and on which she lived
Apparently the defendants-appellants cut the wire fence that was previously put up around the portion in question and, thereafter, set about making a new use of it as the site for the parking of their house trailer. Thus, defendants-appellants effectively evicted plaintiff-appellee from that portion without benefit of legal proceedings and, if all the various actions are put in proper perspective, the real issue here is whether plaintiff-appellee can be thus evicted. The cases which we have noted above indicate that she can not be. Thus, the result reached by the trial court is cor rect and the judgment is, accordingly, affirmed at defendants-appellants' cost.
Affirmed.
REDMANN, J., concurs.
STOULIG, J., dissents.
. The property, located in St. Charles Parish, is described as follows:
"A certain tract of land situated in this Parish of St. Charles, on the west bank of the Mississippi River, about twenty-six miles above the City of New Orleans, measuring one-half of an arpent front on the South or rear line of the New Orleans, Mobile & Texas Railroad, and from thence a depth of about sixty arpents, between parallel lines, bounded above by the property of Widow Erambert Kinler, below by a small strip of land belonging to said vendor, on the front by the said Railroad and in the rear by the property of Alcest Lev-ergne.
"Being the same property acquired by Susan Hadley Butler from, Josephine S. Dennis by act of sale passed before James P. Vial, Notary Public, dated February 22, 1949, and duly recorded in COB 'MMM', folio 487 St. Charles Parish, Louisiana."
. We acknowledge that there must be some mathematical point at which the fractional interest that has been conveyed, may, by its very insignificance, be presumed to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to percipitate a "spiteful use of common property" as described in LeBlanc v. Scurto, 173 So.2d 322 (La.App.1st Cir. 1966) writ refused 247 La. 1017, 176 So.2d 302. But here there is no affirmative showing to that effect and the size of the fractional interest that has been conveyed (and the amount of consideration paid for it) does not, on its face, fall into such a category.