Case Name: James L. PRADOS v. SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-11-03
Citations: 329 So. 2d 744
Docket Number: No. 56255
Parties: James L. PRADOS v. SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
Judges: CALOGERO, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 329
Pages: 744–752

Head Matter:
James L. PRADOS v. SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
No. 56255.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov. 3, 1975.
On Rehearing March 29, 1976.
Edward B. Dubuisson, Dubuisson, Brink-haus, Guglielmo & Dauzat, Opelousas, for defendant-applicant.
Felix A. Dejean, III, Opelousas, for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
BOLIN, Justice.
The Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of the trial court holding plaintiff, as owner of realty, could recover against defendant for the cost of removing improvements from the property under a provision of a predial lease entered into between plaintiff's ancestors in title and defendant. 309 So.2d 386 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1975). For reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm.
The basic question presented is: can plaintiff enforce a provision contained in leases with plaintiff's ancestors in title, which provision obligated Bell to remove improvements on property now owned by plaintiff ?
In September, 1946, Mrs. Rose Prados leased a lot of land to South Central Bell Telephone Company (then Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, Inc.) for five years, with an option to renew for another five years. The lease provided defendant could erect a building and would have the "privilege of removing this building any time they desire to do so." Another similar lease was executed by the same parties in 1954, providing that its terms were to cancel and supersede the 1946 lease. The 1954 contract also included the following:
" It is understood and agreed that lessee will have the privilege of erecting buildings, sheds, fences, etc., and shall also have the privilege of removing same at the completion of this lease or renewals thereof. " (Emphasis supplied.)
Sometime later, James H. Prados acquired the property in question, and on August 13, 1969, he contracted to lease the property to Bell for a term of two years with two options to renew the lease for successive one-year periods. The instrument contained substantially the same stip ulations regarding construction and removal of improvements as were contained in the 1954 contract.
All of the above contracts were recorded in the conveyance records. The renewal options in the 1969 contract were exercised by Bell, and the parties agreed to terminate the lease on April 30, 1973.
Several months thereafter, on July 12, 1973, the widow of James H. Prados sold the property to James L. Prados. After'acquiring title to the property James L. demanded that Bell remove the concrete structures, shell and other improvements which it had placed on the property during its terms as lessee. When Bell refused, James L. Prados had the improvements removed and the property restored to its condition before the Bell leases began. The restoration cost plaintiff $5,338.20, and he instituted this suit against Bell to recover that amount.
It is not readily apparent from the language of the 1954 and 1969 leases why defendant was obligated to remove any improvements it placed on the property. However, it becomes clear by analyzing the terms of the contracts in light of provisions of our Civil Code that defendant was so obligated. La.Civil Code articles 2719 and 2720 establish the obligation of the lessee to restore leased property to its original condition:
"If an inventory has been made of the premises in which the situation, at the time of the lease, has been stated, it shall be the duty of the lessee to deliver back everything in the same state in which it was when taken possession of by him, making, however, the necessary allowance for wear and tear and for unavoidable accidents." La.C.C. art. 2719.
"If no inventory has been made, the lessee is presumed to have received the thing in good order, and he must return it in the same state, with the exceptions contained in the preceding article." La. C.C. art. 2720.
Article 2726 bestows upon the lessee the privilege of removing the improvements placed upon the premises, but also provides that if the improvements are made with lime and cement, the lessor has the option of retaining them upon paying a fair price.
The contract language in the present case allowed Bell, the lessee, the privilege of removing all improvements made on the property. We interpret that provision as a reservation by Bell of.the right to remove all the improvements (regardless of whether they were made with lime and cement) and a forfeiture by the lessor of his option to retain the additions upon paying a fair price for them. We also find this contractual stipulation did not modify the obligation imposed by the Code upon the lessee to restore the premises to their original condition by removing the improvements at the end of the lease.
Bell argues that the lessor acquiesced in the construction of the improvements upon the premises and he thereby waived his statutory right to demand that the leased premises be restored at the termination of the lease to their prior condition. Bell maintains that the lease provision affording the lessee the right to construct certain improvements represents a forfeiture by the lessor of this right to demand restoration.
We find no merit in defendant's contention. Waiver of the right to have the premises restored to their original condition cannot be inferred from an agreement allowing construction of improvements during the term of the lease. To the contrary, such a stipulation merely prevents the lessor from asserting during the term of the lease that the lessee has breached his contract by constructing unauthorized additions on the property. The case cited by defendant in support of his position on this point is inapposite. In Riggs v. Lawton, 231 La. 1019, 93 So.2d 543 (1957), this Court inferred from all the circumstances that the lessor had agreed to allow the lessee at the termination of the lease to leave the constructions he had placed on the property. We find no circumstances in this case indicating such a waiver by the lessor. We agree with the conclusion reached under similar circumstances in Dietz v. Superior Oil Co., 252 So.2d 198 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1971):
" If the parties had intended that the lessee should be allowed to leave or abandon any improvements or additions at the time the term or extended term of the lease terminated, this could have been specifically provided in the contract." 252 So.2d at 200.
Having determined Bell was obligated under its lease with plaintiff's ancestors in title to remove the improvements it had placed on the leased property, we must determine whether plaintiff could assert this right to compel removal. Bell argues that the contract of lease creates only personal rights and obligations which may be asserted only by the original lessor. Plaintiff, on the other hand, maintains that a recorded lease creates real rights and" obligations which follow the property. Therefore, both parties ask us to classify rights and obligations under a lease contract as real or personal, and then to conclude therefrom whether a landowner may require that a lessee of his ancestor in title remove improvements placed on the property during the lease.
The Louisiana concept of a real right is not entirely clear, and it seems to differ materially from the French and the Roman. There is- considerable confusion among the French commentators whether a predial lease creates real or personal rights. The Louisiana jurisprudence does not always conform to our legislation on the subject, and the legislation itself is not entirely consistent. It appears that the rights and obligations created by the contract of lease are hybrids, and whether those interests should be treated as personal or real will depend on what rights are being asserted and what obligations are sought to be enforced.
Thus, we feel that to solve the issue presented by this case, rather than resorting to any broad determination of the nature of the interests flowing from a lease, we must examine the specific directives of our Civil Code on the effect of a sale of property upon the rights and obligations of the land's lessor and lessee.
"If the lessor sells the thing leased, the purchaser can not turn out the tenant before his lease has expired, unless the contrary has been stipulated in the contract." La.C.C. art. 2733.
"Not only servitudes, but leases and all other rights, which the owner had imposed on his land before the alienation of the soil, form real obligations which accompany it in the hands of the person who acquires it, although he have made no stipulation on the subject, or they be not • mentioned in the act of transfer. The purchaser may, if the circumstances permit it, have relief against the seller for concealment of such charges; but the law establishes the rule that no one can transfer a greater right than he himself has, except where the neglect of some formality required by law has subjected the owner of the real incumbrance to a loss of his right, in favor of a creditor or bona fide purchaser." La.C.C. art. 2015. (Emphasis supplied.)
"Heritable obligations and stipulations give to and impose upon heirs, assigns, and other representatives, the same duties and rights that the original parties had and were liable to, except that beneficiary heirs can only be liable to the amount of the succession." La.C.C. art. 2008.
"All rights, acquired by a heritable obligation, may be assigned; this assignment may be made, expressly by contract granting such right, or impliedly by the conveyance of the property to which they are attached." La.C.C. art. 2009.
"Not only the obligation, but the right resulting from a contract relative to immovable property, passes with the property. Thus the right of servitude in favor of immovable property, passes with it, and thus also the heir or other acquirer will have the right to enforce a contract made for the improvement of the property by the person from whom he acquired it." La.C.C. art. 2011, (Emphasis supplied.)
As applied to the instant case we find these provisions mandate that the duties and privileges imposed by the recorded contract of lease bind the owner of the property and the lessee after the sale of the property to a third party. Thus, every unexecuted provision in the lease between James H. Prados and Bell was binding upon Bell and James L. Prados, after the latter became owner of the property.
Moreover, the obligation sought to be enforced in this suit is not merely one which arises from the will of the parties to the lease. The obligation to restore the premises is imposed by positive provisions of our Civil Code from which the parties have not derogated by the terms of their contract. Thus, defendant Bell was obligated to remove the improvements it had constructed on the property. Failing to remove these improvements, it owes plaintiff for his costs in restoring the land to its prior condition.
For the reasons assigned, the judgments of the trial court and the court of appeal are affirmed. South Central Bell Telephone Company is assessed with costs of this Court.
CALOGERO, J., concurs.
DIXON, J., dissents.
. Comment, 21 La.L.Rev. 462 (1961) ; Reagan v. Murphy, 235 La. 529, 105 So.2d 210 (1958) ; 2 A. Yiannopoulos, Civil Law Property, § 84 (1966).
. 1 M. Planiol, Traite Elementaire de Droit Civil, § 2165 (La.St.L.Inst. transi. 1959) ; Cass., 6 March 1861, D. 61.1.418, S. 61.1.713; 2 A. Yiannopoulos, Civil Law Property, § 87 (1966) ; 1 Troplong, De 1'dchange et du louage 60 (1859).
. Comment, 21 La.L.Rev. 462 (1961). Compare La.C.C. art. 2015, 2010, and 2011 to Reagan v. Murphy, 235 La. 529, 105 So.2d 210 (1958) ; Gulf Refining Co. of La. v. Glas-sell, 186 La. 190, 171 So. 846 (1936) ; Arnold v. Sun Oil Co., 218 La. 50, 48 So.2d 369 (1949) ; Weber v. H. G.. Hill Stores, Inc., 207 La. 500, 21 So.2d 510 (1945).
. Compare La.C.C. arts. 2015, 2010, 2011 to La.O.C.P. art. 3656.
. Real rights follow property and can be asserted against anyone. In Louisiana, a recorded lease is effective against a third party purchaser, but a lessee cannot bring a pos-sessory or petitory action to enforce his right to possession. See 2 A. Yiannopoulos, Civil Law Property, § 84 (1966).