Case Name: Marjorie Montegut SUTTON v. Minnette Millet MONTEGUT
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1989-03-15
Citations: 544 So. 2d 1181
Docket Number: No. 88-CA-770
Parties: Marjorie Montegut SUTTON v. Minnette Millet MONTEGUT.
Judges: Before CHEHARDY, C.J., and GRISBAUM and GOTHARD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 544
Pages: 1181–1185

Head Matter:
Marjorie Montegut SUTTON v. Minnette Millet MONTEGUT.
No. 88-CA-770.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
March 15, 1989.
On Rehearing May 17, 1989.
Ryan & Willeford and Diane K. Zink, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Kliebert and Heltz, and Thomas J. Klie-bert, Jr., Gramercy, for defendant-appellee.
Before CHEHARDY, C.J., and GRISBAUM and GOTHARD, JJ.

Opinion:
CHEHARDY, Chief Judge.
In this petitory action, the plaintiff-appellant seeks to prove her title to a piece of land known as Lot 3-A of the Division of Elvina Plantation and -to have the defendant-appellee's title to that property erased from the parish mortgage and conveyance records. Finding there are indispensable parties who have not been joined in the suit, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case, for the reasons that follow.
Plaintiff, Marjorie Montegut Sutton, and her brothers, John 0. Montegut and Cris-well R. Montegut, are co-owners in indivi-sión of portions of the tract formerly known as Elvina Plantation, located in St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana. They acquired the land by donations from their father, J.O. Montegut, and their uncle, Walton J. Montegut.
The Elvina Plantation was formerly owned by the appellant's grandparents, C.F. Montegut and Elvina Haydel Monte-gut. J.O. Montegut and his six siblings inherited equal undivided interests in the Elvina Plantation following their parents' deaths.
By act of partition recorded on September 7,1962, the land was divided among the siblings in accordance with a map known as Alternate Plan # 2 for Division of Elvina Plantation by Landry Engineering Company, dated May 15, 1959, revised 7/20/59, 6/6/61 and 7/20/61. Under the plan the plantation was divided into twelve lots, which were grouped into seven parcels of land, each parcel totaling 93.328 acres. The property thus acquired by Walton Montegut is designated on the Landry map and in the act of partition as Lots Three (3) and Three-A (3-A).
On October 3, 1972, by act of donation inter vivos recorded on October 5, 1972, Walton J. Montegut transferred to John O. Montegut, Jr., Criswell R. Montegut, and Marjorie Montegut, wife of Alphonse Sutton, land designated in the act as Lot No. Three (3). The property description in the 1972 act of donation varied in several important particulars from the description of Walton Montegut's property in the 1962 act of partition.
The defendant, Minette Millet Montegut, is the wife of Criswell R. Montegut. She claims ownership of the parcel of land made the basis of this suit under an act of sale dated August 5, 1982 from Walton J. Montegut to Minette Millet Montegut, which was not recorded until January 4, 1985, after Walton Montegut died. In that act of sale, the property transferred is designated as Lot Number Three-A (3-A). The property description in the 1982 act of sale also varies from the description in the 1962 act of partition.
As a result, in December 1987 Marjorie Montegut Sutton filed this suit for recognition of ownership of immovable property. She asserted that the 1972 donation inter vivos transferred to plaintiff and her brothers 93.328 acres of land, including both Lot 3 and Lot 3-A of the Division of Elvina Plantation, and that defendant Minette Millet Montegut is unlawfully claiming ownership of Lot 3-A. John and Criswell Monte-gut did not join in the suit as plaintiffs and were not otherwise impleaded.
Following trial in May 1988, judgment was rendered on June 21, 1988, dismissing plaintiff's demand at her cost. Plaintiff appealed. In reviewing the record, we noted the omission of plaintiffs two co-owners from the suit.
Under LSA-C.C.P. art. 641, no adjudication of an action can be made unless all indispensable parties are joined therein. Indispensable parties are those "whose interests in the subject matter are so interrelated, and would be so directly affected by the judgment, that a complete and equitable adjudication of the controversy cannot be made unless they are joined in the action." C.C.P. art. 641. The failure to join an indispensable party to an action may be noticed by the trial or appellate court on its own motion. LSA-C.C.P. arts. 645, 927.
In a petitory action, where persons own land in indivisión and one or more co-owners are not parties to the suit, no judgment can be rendered until all co-owners are party to the suit. Chiasson v. Duplechain, 56 So.2d 615 (La.App. 1 Cir.1952). Individuals who are in possession of an undivided interest in property are indispensable parties to a proceeding in which a plaintiff seeks a declaration of ownership. Blanchard v. Naquin, 428 So.2d 926 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied 433 So.2d 162 (La.1983); Edmonson v. Abell, 423 So.2d 100 (La.App. 1 Cir.1982).
When an appellate court notices the absence of indispensable parties to a suit on appeal, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the judgment and remand the matter for joinder of the absent parties and retrial. State, Dept. of Hwys. v. Lamar Adv. Co. of La., Inc., 279 So.2d 671 (La.1973); Horn v. Skelly Oil Co., 221 La. 626, 60 So.2d 65 (1952).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dated June 21, 1988, is vacated and set aside and this case is remanded to the district court for joinder of John 0. Monte-gut and Criswell R. Montegut as parties to these proceedings and for a retrial of the case thereafter. The costs of this appeal are to be divided equally between the appellant and the appellee.
VACATED AND REMANDED.