Court Opinion

ID: 9668842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:28:34.417639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:48.928912
License: Public Domain

SANDERS, Justice
(dissenting).
At issue here is the ownership of a 38-acre tract of land in Ascension Parish. The defendant is the record owner. However, the majority opinion has sustained the prescriptive title of the plaintiff-relator under Article 3499 of the Louisiana Civil Code, LSA, by permitting him to add to his own possession that of his mother, brothers, and sisters so as to cumulate the required 30 years adverse possession.
It is well settled that in order to tack, or add, possessions for the 30-year acquisitive prescription there must be a juridical link between the possessors as to the particular property. A purchaser may avail himself of the possession of his vendor only if he received a title to the property from the vendor. Arts. 3493, 3494, LSA-Civil Code; Stutson v. McGee, 241 La. 646, 130 So.2d 403; Sibley v. Pierson, 125 La. 478, 51 So. 502.
As a basis for its decision under the foregoing rule, the majority makes the following finding concerning the conveyances to plaintiff-relator from his mother, brothers, and sisters:
“While the property which forms the subject matter of this suit is not specifically described in any of the transactions hereinabove recited, nevertheless, the property which was intended to be transferred and which was actually transferred and delivered is described as ‘A certain sugar plantation known as McManor Plantation, situated in the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana * * *’, which in fact included the property in controversy. We note that each transfer not only conveys all the rights, ways, servitudes and privileges, but also conveys the advantages and appurtenances belonging to McManor Plantation.”
I can not agree to this finding. The parties to this proceeding concede that the plaintiff-relator “at no time acquired by written instrument, nor did he or any heir ever transfer by written instrument, any part or interest in the property which is the subject of this suit, viz., the 38.88 acres.” 1 (Italics mine) However, irrespective of the concession, the instruments of conveyance reflect that the 38-acre tract was not included in the transfers. In these instruments, the parties transfer McManor Plantation as described in detail, according to section, township, range, and acreage. No land in Section 6, where the property in dispute is located, is described or conveyed.
However, to support its finding that the conveyances included the transferor’s in*356terest in the disputed property, the majority points to the following language, which follows the detailed description:
“Together with all the rights, ways, servitudes, privileges and advantages belonging to said plantation and all of the buildings and improvements thereon and belonging and appurtenances thereof.”
Clearly, this language has reference to predial servitudes, which are owed to one estate by another. See Arts. 646-659, LSA-Civil Code. It does not, and cannot, convey the additional tract of land. Moreover, neither the ownership, nor a claim to the ownership, of the 38-acre tract can be considered a servitude, privilege or advantage' belonging to said plantation.
Inasmuch as there is no juridical link between plaintiff-relator and his mother, brothers, and sisters as to the property in controversy, he cannot utilize their possession for purposes of acquisitive prescription.
I, of course, assume at this time that the' plaintiff succeeded to his father’s possession to the extent of an undivided' Math interest and that his prescriptive title to this interest has been shown.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. Original Brief of Plaintiff-Relator pp. 9-10.