Board of Com'rs v. Rathborne Land Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 February 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-CA-1206.,03-CA-1206.
• Citation: 868 So.2d 928
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAFOURCHE BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT v. RATHBORNE LAND COMPANY, INC.

868 So.2d 928

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAFOURCHE BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT v.RATHBORNE LAND COMPANY, INC.

No. 03-CA-1206.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

February 23, 2004.

Jude G. Gravois, Vacherie, LA, Dale J. Brou, Boutte, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Newman Trowbridge, Jr., Lafayette, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.

Panel composed of Judges SOL GOTHARD, CLARENCE E. McMANUS and WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD.

SOL GOTHARD, Judge.

Plaintiff, Board of Commissioners of the Lafourche Basin Levee District(Levee District) appeals from a judgment dismissing its action to be declared owner of lands in possession of defendantRathborne Land Co.(Rathborne).We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Levee District instituted this action alleging that it was owner of property bordering Lake Des Allemandes that was in possession of Rathborne Land.The Levee Board argued that it was the owner of the disputed property by virtue of a perfected title tracing back to the sovereign via a land grant from the United States to the State of Louisiana in 1923.Rathborne, in defense, argued that the patent purporting to vest ownership of the disputed land in the State of Louisiana was invalid, as the property at issue had already been deeded to its (Rathborne's) ancestors in title.

The facts adduced at trial reflect that in the winter of 1830, pursuant to a contract with the Surveyor General of the United States, Thomas Evans conducted a survey of the lands bordering Lake Des Allemands, more specifically Township 13 South, Range 18 East, bordering on Lake Des Allemandes.An official plat of the survey was approved in 1832.That plat depicted a fractional section 9, bordering on the lake and containing 595.5 acres.(Each section that is not fractional contains 640 acres.)The plat also depicted a fractional section 10, bordering on the lake and subdivided into two lots.The east lot contained 163.96 acres and the west lot contained 84.03 acres.Thereafter, Adolph Wiendahl acquired ownership of the west half of fractional section 10;John Rykowski acquired ownership of the east half of fractional section 10; and Lezin Becnel acquired ownership of fractional section 9.In 1904, the Louisiana Cypress Lumber Company obtained ownership of all the lands in fractional section 9 and the east half of fractional section 10.It also acquired ownership of a portion of the west half of fractional section 10.¹In 1927, Rathborne acquired ownership of the property from Louisiana Cypress Lumber Co., and it has been in possession since that time.

In 1859, a resurvey of a portion of Township 13 South, Range 18 East was conducted by Maurice Hauke, and an official plat of this survey was approved in 1859.Hauke's plat depicts section 9 as a complete section, not bordering the lake and containing 640 acres, and fractional section 10 as containing 639.6 acres.Thus, Hauke's resurvey increases the area of section 9 by 44.5 acres and section 10 by 391.6 acres.

Subsequently, the State of Louisiana selected sections 9and10 pursuant to the Swamp Land Grant.On July 15, 1896, the United States cancelled these selections as duplicative.Thereafter, on September 25, 1923, the United States issued a patent to the State of Louisiana for those portions of section 9and10"lying between the meanders of Lake Des Allemands as shown on the plat approved July 9, 1832 and the meanders of that lake as shown on the plat approved September 26, 1859."On March 15, 1951, the State transferred that portion of land to the Levee District, plaintiffs herein.

On June 16, 1999, the Levee Board instituted this petitory action, seeking to be recognized as owner of the land "lying between the meanders of Lake Des Allemandes on the survey plat approved on July 9, 1832" and "the meanders of Lake Des Allemandes as shown on the survey plat approved on September 28(20), 1859."After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Rathborne to be the owner of "44.50 acres in Section 9, Township 13 South, Range18 East, and; 391.23 acres in Section 10, Township 13 South, Range18 East."The Levee District filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted only on the narrow issue of Rathborne's claim to the property located in the western half of fractional section 10.Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment on the new trial, holding that "... the Board is not the owner of the excess property in question.Additionally, Rathborne has not presented evidence sufficient to delineate with specificity the ownership parameters of Lot 2 in the west half of Section 10 and, therefore, cannot be declared owner of the excess land in the west half of Section 10."

Plaintiff initiated this suit as a petitory action, admitting that Rathborne was in possession of the land in question.

LaC.C.P. art. 3651 states:

The petitory action is one brought by a person who claims the ownership, but who is not in possession, of immovable property or of a real right therein, against another who is in possession or who claims the ownership thereof adversely, to obtain judgment recognizing the plaintiff's ownership.

To obtain a judgment recognizing his ownership of immovable property or real right therein, the plaintiff in a petitory action shall prove that he has acquired ownership from a previous owner or by acquisitive prescription, if the court finds that the defendant is in possession thereof.La.C.C. art. 531;La.C.C.P. art. 3653(1).That is, the plaintiff must show "valid record title", or "title good against the world without regard to the title of the party in possession."The plaintiff must produce a prima facie complete chain of title before the defendant in possession must go forward with any proof.Gaudet v. City of Kenner,487 So.2d 446, (La.App. 5 Cir.1986), writ den.493 So.2d 638(La.1986).Once plaintiff has proved his title, the focus is then on defendant's title.Bickham, Inc. v. Graves,457 So.2d 1210, (La. App. 1 Cir.1984).

Plaintiff herein has produced title back to the sovereign, by virtue of a patent issued in 1929.Thus, the focus then shifted to Rathborne.Rathborne contended the patent issued by the United States was invalid, because it purported to transfer ownership of land that the United States did not own.Rathborne argued that the patents issued pursuant to the Evans survey transferred the ownership of the land up to the water's edge, and therefore the United States could not issue a patent for land "from meander to meander."

In general, meanders are not to be treated as boundaries, and when the United States conveys a tract of land by patent referring to an official plat which shows the same bordering on a navigable river, the purchaser takes title up to the water line.Producers Oil Co. v. Hanzen,238 U.S. 325, 35 S.Ct. 755, 59 L.Ed. 1330(1915).The meander line is not a boundary, but the body of water whose margin is meandered is the true boundary.Mitchell v. Smale,140 U.S. 406, 11 S.Ct. 819, 35 L.Ed. 442(1891).The reason for this rule is that it is not possible for a surveyor to delineate precisely, in a series of straight lines, the meanders of a stream or body of water.Land v. Brockett,162 La. 519, 110 So. 740(1926), cert. den.273 U.S. 757, 47 S.Ct. 460, 71 L.Ed. 877(1927).Furthermore, a resurvey after the issuance of a patent does not affect the rights of the landowner.United States v. State Investment Co.,264 U.S. 206, 44 S.Ct. 289, 68 L.Ed. 639(1924).However, if the facts and circumstances affirmatively disclose an intention to limit the grant to actual traverse lines, these must be treated as definite boundaries.Producers Oil Co., supra.

This rule, that the purchaser takes to the water line, will not be applied where the facts conclusively show that no body of water existed or exists at or near the place indicated on the plat, or where there never was an attempt to survey the land in controversy.Jeems Bayou Fishing & Hunting Club v. United States,260 U.S. 561, 43 S.Ct. 205, 67 L.Ed. 402(1923);United States v. Zager,338 F.Supp. 984(E.D.Wis.1972).Likewise, the rule will not be applied where the circumstances, as well as the extent and character of the lands, necessitate the conclusion that the omission was deliberate, or the result of such gross and palpable error as to constitute a fraud upon the government.Jeems, supra.

In Zager, supra,338 F.Supp. at 989, the court said:

In dealing with the exception based on gross error, it is important that the adjective "gross" not be overlooked, for as indicated earlier when dealing with

...