Labuzan-Delane v. Cochran & Cochran Land Co.
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:22-CV-149-SA-DAS |
| Decision Date | 24 July 2023 |
| Parties | JENNINE LABUZAN-DELANE PLAINTIFF v. COCHRAN & COCHRAN LAND CO. INC., COCHRAN FARMS, INC., LAKELAND FARMS, LLC, GREENLEE FAMILY, LLC, JENNINGS FARMS, INC and DAVID T. COCHRAN DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
On September 25, 2022, Jennine Labuzan-Delane initiated this action by filing her pro se Complaint [1]. On February 2, 2023, she filed her First Amended Complaint [41] wherein she named the following Defendants: Greenlee Family LLC, Lakeland Farms, LLC, Cochran & Cochran Land Co Inc., Cochran Farms, Inc., Jennings Farms, Inc., and David T. Cochran (“the Defendants”).[1]The parties have engaged in extensive motion practice, and there are currently eight pending Motions [55, 58, 60, 63, 68, 70, 72, 91] in the case. Having reviewed the filings, as well as the applicable authorities, the Court is prepared to rule.
Labuzan-Delane alleges that Greenlee Family, Lakeland Farms, and the Cochran Defendants are wrongfully occupying and claiming ownership of land that she inherited from her ancestor, Charles Augustus Labuzan (“Mr. Labuzan”).[2] On August 10, 1836, Mr. Labuzan, Frederick W. Schmidt, and Robert L. DeCoin purchased Sections 33, 34, and 35 of Township 16, Range 8 West in Washington County, Mississippi from the Federal Government. Of the 1,361 acres acquired, Mr. Labuzan, Schmidt and DeCoin were tenants in common and Mr. Labuzan owned a one-fourth interest in the land. According to Labuzan-Delane's Amended Complaint [41], a patent for the land was issued from the Federal Government to Mr. Labuzan, Schmidt, and DeCoin on December 10, 1840 and recorded in the land records on April 3, 1919. The patent vested Mr. Labuzan and the other grantees with a fee simple ownership of the property. The patent also included language that the property ownership was “to their heirs and assigns forever.” [41] at p. 2. Labuzan-Delane contends that this language means that the patent vested an interest in Mr. Labuzan for eternity and, as his heir, she is the rightful owner of the land.
Conversely, the Defendants contend that Labuzan-Delane is not the rightful owner of the land because Mr. Labuzan conveyed his interest to the Merchants Bank of New Orleans in 1848. According to sectional indices attached to Lakeland Farms' Answer [54], Mr. Labuzan conveyed his one-fourth interest to Charles Gardiner on July 8, 1837. See [54], Ex. 2 at p. 1. In a deed dated July 8, 1842, Charles Gardiner conveyed the interest back to Mr. Labuzan. Mr. Labuzan then sold his interest to Merchants Bank of New Orleans through a warranty deed dated March 20, 1848. The deed was recorded on August 12, 1848. Although the Defendants contend that Labuzan-Delane is not the rightful owner of the property because he sold his interest in the land, Labuzan-Delane contends that, Mr. Labuzan's signature on the 1848 deed is forged and patented lands cannot be adversely possessed.
Labuzan-Delane's Amended Complaint [41] sets forth one claim of ejectment, alleging that the Defendants are in unlawful possession of the land. According to her Amended Complaint [41], the Defendants are jointly possessing acres within Sections 33, 34, and 35 of the land in Washington County. She specifically contends that “[s]ome Defendants have leasing agreements with entities and/or individuals for the purpose of engaging in unauthorized timber and/or mineral operations.” [46] at p. 10. According to the warranty deed attached to its Answer [46], Greenlee Family acquired ownership of the land on March 18, 2021.[3]Attached to its Motion [68], Lakeland Farm's warranty deed shows that it acquired its interest in the land on December 20, 2012.
On April 28, 2022, Labuzan-Delane filed a Quitclaim Deed from herself as grantor to herself as grantee conveying the subject property to herself. In their Answers [46, 52, 54], all of the Defendants bring forth counterclaims, including claims for Slander of Title, Removal of Cloud on Title, Adverse Possession, violations of the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act, and requests for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Labuzan-Delane has filed separate Motions to Dismiss [55, 63, 70] the Defendants' counterclaims. In turn, Greenlee Family and Lakeland Farms filed Motions for Summary Judgment [58, 68] seeking dismissal of Labuzan-Delane's ejectment claim.[4]
The Court will first address Greenlee Family's and Lakeland Farms' Motions for Summary Judgment [58, 68]. Then, the Court will resolve Labuzan-Delane's Motions to Dismiss [53, 63, 70].
Summary judgment is warranted when the evidence reveals no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Rule 56 “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Nabors v. Malone, 2019 WL 2617240, at *1 (N.D. Miss. June 26, 2019) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)).
“The moving party ‘bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'” Id. (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323). “The nonmoving party must then ‘go beyond the pleadings' and ‘designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Id. (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). Importantly, “the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the affidavits, depositions, and exhibits of record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Waste Mgmt. of La., LLC v. River Birch, Inc., 920 F.3d 958, 964 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Reingold v. Swiftships, Inc., 126 F.3d 645, 646 (5th Cir. 1997)). However, “[c]onclusory allegations, speculation, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic arguments are not an adequate substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Nabors, 2019 WL 2617240 at *1 (citing TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgewick James of Wash., 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002)) (additional citations omitted).
Both Greenlee Family and Lakeland Farms filed Motions for Summary Judgment [58, 68] seeking dismissal of Labuzan-Delane's ejectment claim on the ground that her ancestor, Mr. Labuzan, conveyed his interest away in 1848, and even if he had not, the doctrine of adverse possession forecloses any claim Labuzan-Delane may have.
First, the Defendants contend that on March 20, 1848, Mr. Labuzan conveyed his full, onefourth interest of the property to the Merchants Bank of New Orleans. Specifically, Greenlee Family argues that “Mr. Labuzan conveyed his entire fee-interest in the property to Merchants Bank, and therefore severed any heir or future descendants' claim to the subject property.” [59] at p. 3. Both Greenlee Family and Lakeland farms rely on certified land records attached to their Motions [58, 68], which show Mr. Labuzan transferring his interest to Merchants Bank through a warranty deed. See [58], Ex. 1; [68], Ex. 5. Additionally, Lakeland Farms argues that “[Labuzan-Delane] omitted the first several pages of the Section Indices, each of which would have disclosed to Plaintiff that her alleged ancestory [sic], Charles A. Labuzan, acquired an interest in the property on August 10, 1836, and sold his interest in 1848.” [69] at p. 2.
Moreover, the Defendants contend that even if there were no certifiable records showing that Mr. Labuzan transferred his interest in 1848, the land has been adversely possessed for 175 years. The Defendants contend that, prior to acquiring the land, several others were in possession of the land. Labuzan-Delane does not dispute the fact that others have possessed the land since 1848, she instead simply argues that patented land cannot be adversely possessed.
In response, Labuzan-Delane maintains her position that she is the rightful owner of the property in Washington County. The crux of her argument is that Mr. Labuzan's signature was forged on the 1848 deed to Merchants Bank and the land patent gave Mr. Labuzan's heirs an interest in the land forever. Labuzan-Delane specifically argues that the signature on the 1848 instrument conveying the land to Merchants Bank is not the original signature of Mr. Labuzan. She contends that Mr. Labuzan's real signature is the one included on the 1846 Live Birth Certificate, which is attached to her Motion for Judicial Notice [72]. Essentially, Labuzan-Delane argues that the signature from the 1848 deed and the signature from the 1846 Birth Certificate are not the same. Her argument is grounded in the fact that each signature contains different variations of the letter “C”, and therefore the signatures are not the same.
“When a party challenges the validity of a properly [] acknowledged deed, that party must overcome several presumptions favoring the legitimacy of the document.” Mapp v Chambers, 25 So.3d 1096, 1101 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “One of the presumptions is authenticity, which ‘provides that, where a deed is properly acknowledged, the instrument is presumed to be authentic because the certificate of acknowledgment infers verity and presumptively states the truth.'” Catlettv. Catlett, 358 So.3d 366, 374 (Miss....
To continue reading
Request your trial