Deborah Marie Horaist v. Edward A. Pratt And Jean Johnson Pratt

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 23, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
DEBORAH MARIE HORAIST
VS.
EDWARD A. PRATT AND JEAN JOHNSON
PRATT
No.2021-C-00166
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Edward A. Pratt - Applicant Defendant; Jean Johnson Pratt - Applicant
Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial
District Court Number(s) 2017-5592, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) 20-
39;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 23, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
JBM
PDG
03/23/2021 "See News Release 011 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2021-C-00166
DEBORAH MARIE HORAIST
VS.
EDWARD A. PRATT AND JEAN JOHNSON PRATT
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette
PER CURIAM
WRIT GRANTED. Ownership and other real rights in an immovable may
be acquired by the prescription of thirty years without the need of just title or
possession in good faith. La. Civ. Code art. 3486. To acquire possession of property,
one must take corporeal possession with intent to possess as owner. One is presumed
to intend to possess as owner unless he began to possess in the name of and for
another. La. Civ. Code art. 3427. Corporeal possession is achieved through the
exercise of physical acts of use, detention, or enjoyment over a thing. La. Civ. Code
art. 3425. The possession must be continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and
unequivocal.
The trial court correctly found the Pratts acquired ownership of the disputed
land through thirty-year acquisitive prescription. When the Pratts purchased their
lot in 1977 a visual boundary existed, which they believed to be the property line.
They began exercising possession up to this visible boundary beginning in
September 1977. According to te stimony, they placed swings, parked boats, and
maintained the yard in this area since 1977. They constructed a wrought iron fence
along a portion of the boundary and later constructed a wooden fence along the entire
boundary line. The Pratts’ possession began in 1977, and it was never questioned
until Deborah Horaist purcha sed her lot in 2014 . The trial court correctly set the
03/23/21

boundary along the existing wooden fence as the Pratts had acquired ownership of
the land by thirty-year acquisitive prescription in 2007.
The court of appeal believed the Pratts could not prove possession because
they did not erect the chain link fence or plant the crepe myrtle trees to create the
original boundary. However, a possessor need not construct his own fen ce or
boundary, but may occupy up to an existing fence line and prescribe on the land
possessed. See Cooper v. Farris, 491 So.2d 390, 393 (La. Ct. App. 1986); Kelley v.
Stringer, 422 So.2d 189, 192 (La. Ct. App. 1982), writ denied, 426 So.2d 177 (La.
1983). The court of appeal also misconstrued the Pratts ’ discussion with their
neighbor before the building of new fencing on the existing line as evidence of
precarious possession . These discussions do not disprove the Pratt s’ adverse
possession, but actually support a finding that their possession was continuous,
uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal.
In a boundary action, “the boundary’s location is a question of fact to be
determined by the trier of fact, and such a de termination should not be reversed on
appeal in the absence of manifest error.” Cooper v. Farris, 491 So.2d 390, 393 (La.
App. 3d Cir. 1986). The TC’s factual conclusions were reasonable and based on
testimony and evidence presented at trial. Accordingly, we reverse the court of
appeal’s ruling and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.