Hurst v. Ricard, 86-C-2483

• Citation: 514 So.2d 14
• Decision Date: 19 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-C-2483,86-C-2483
• Parties: Norbert J. HURST, et al. v. Eveylyn Vallet RICARD, et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 14

514 So.2d 14

Norbert J. HURST, et al. v. Eveylyn Vallet RICARD, et al.

No. 86-C-2483.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1987.

John Jewell, Jewell & Jewell, New Roads, John R. Tharp, William McClendon, III, Lloyd Lunceford, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for applicant.

Thomas Nelson, New Roads, for respondent.

DENNIS, Justice.

This is an action to establish the boundary line between the contiguous properties of plaintiffs and defendants. Both tracts belonged originally to a common owner, Gatien Decuir, and were carved from a larger tract having a front of five arpents on the lower chenal ¹ of False River in Pointe Coupee Parish. The parent tract was a wedge-shaped or trapezoidal tract tapering rearward to a back boundary line substantialy shorter than its front.

Gatien Decuir divided the parent tract among his family members in a number of separate conveyances. In 1882, he sold to plaintiffs' ancestor in title the first carved out tract (the Hurst tract) fronting one and one-quarter arpents on the lower chenal of False River by a depth of fifty arpents more or less. However, the deed did not describe the side line or give the dimension of the rear boundary of the property conveyed. In 1888, Decuir sold to defendants' ancestor in title the second carved out tract (the Ricard tract) having a one acre front on False River adjacent to the property now known as the Hurst tract "with lines closing toward the rear according to title." However, again no dimension was given of the rear property line. On the same day, Decuir conveyed to his wife, Rosalie Patin, the remainder of his tract described as having two and one-half arpents more or less fronting on False River. Again, the dimension of the rear boundary was not given.

The land which Decuir divided among his family members is located within Section 49 of Pointe Coupee Parish. Section 49 is a large trapezoid-shaped tract fronting on the lower chenal of False River that was originally owned by Gatien Decuir's father, Joseph Decuir; its rear width is approximately two-thirds that of its front. A surveyor's drawing introduced as an exhibit indicates that Section 49 has been subdivided into some 20 tracts fronting on the chenal and closing or tapering to the rear.

There is no dispute as to the location of the front property lines of the contiguous Hurst and Ricard tracts. The sole controversy is whether the boundary line between them should be drawn so that the Hurst tract closes or tapers to the rear; in other words, whether the Hurst tract is a trapezoid or a parallelogram. This disagreement between adjacent owners over a relatively small amount of land after one hundred years of peaceful coexistence was provoked by mineral production from the properties.

At trial, three surveyors testified as to how each would establish the boundary line. Mr. Hargrave, the surveyor called by the Hurst tract owners, testified that in his opinion the boundary between the tracts should be parallel with the other side line of the Hurst tract, which also is a section line. He inferred this from the fact that the deed from Decuir to the ancestor in title of the Hurst tract owners was silent as to whether the side lines should open or close to the rear. Also, he found remnants of an old fence in close proximity to the line he ultimately concluded should be the boundary.

Mr. Laws, the surveyor called by the Ricard tract owners, was of the opinion that because the 1882 deed was silent as to the direction of the side lines of the Hurst tract, the side line should be drawn so as to taper or close to the rear, thus giving each tract a back line proportionate to its front line. He testified that it was a custom or usage to divide chenal frontage into tapered tracts closing rearward in Section 49 and in other trapezoidal sections closing rearward that front on navigable or formerly navigable streams in southern Louisiana, particularly along False River. Mr. Haydel, who had performed an independent survey of the same property for Chevron, was also called as an expert by the Ricard tract owners. He corroborated the testimony of Mr. Laws that the lines should close to the rear when a deed is silent on the matter and confirmed that this was a common practice or usage in Section 49 and similarly situated tracts.

After reviewing the conflicting testimony in the case, the trial judge found that the preponderance of the evidence as to the aim of the 1882 deed supported the division line advocated by the Ricard tract owners and adopted it as the boundary. In reaching his decision, the trial judge made several findings of fact: he found it unlikely that Decuir intended for the boundary to parallel the section line because this would have increased the degree of closing of his remaining property; he gave credence to the testimony of Mr. Laws that the various properties originally part of the Decuir property closed proportionately to the rear; he rejected the survey by Mr. Hargrave because it failed to use the ancient monuments found and accepted by Mr. Laws; and he rejected the old fence remnants as evidence of intention of the parties to the 1882 deed because of the lack of proof that the fence was in existence at that time.

The court of appeal reversed. Hurst v. Ricard, 498 So.2d 258 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986). The appeals court concluded that decisions of this court as a matter of law required that the boundary line be parallel to the other sideline of the Hurst tract. Bourguignon v. Boudouisquie, 6 Mart. (N.S.) 697 (1828); see also, Bergeron v. Daspit, 119 La. 9, 43 So. 894 (1907), on rehearing, (decided after remand sub nom., Minor v. Daspit, 128 La. 33, 54 So. 413 (1911)); Ramos Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Sanders, 117 La. 615, 42 So. 158 (1906). Apparently, the rule which the court of appeal deduced from these cases, primarily Bourguignon, is that "when a man sells so many arpents of land on a water course, with the ordinary depth of forty, he is understood to convey the superficial quantity which results from multiplying the depth by the front, or, in other words, that the side lines must be run at right angles from the front, unless the lines are stated to close, or open, or other expressions used, by which the legal intendment of the terms so much as front and depth is controlled." 6 Mart. (N.S.) 697, 700. This court on original hearing affirmed, agreeing with the reasoning and the result. On rehearing, we reverse.

Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties. Civil Code art. 2045 (1984). See comments under this and other code articles cited below for their sources in the Civil Code of 1870. See Soverign Insurance Company v. Texas Pipe Line Company, 488 So.2d 982 (La.1986). The general rules which govern the interpretation of contracts apply in construing a contract of sale, except when special provision is made otherwise by law. Civil Code art. 2438 (1870).

In resolving boundary disputes, this court has consistently recognized that the principal judicial duty and objective is to determine and implement the intention of the parties and that the rules of interpretation set forth in statutes and jurisprudence must be considered as auxiliary rather than as absolutely controlling. City...