Parquet v. Parquet

• Decision Date: 07 May 1962
• Docket Number: 428,Nos. 427,s. 427
• Citation: 141 So.2d 444
• Parties: Clara Carter PARQUET v. Jean PARQUET, Jr., et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 444

141 So.2d 444

Clara Carter PARQUET v. Jean PARQUET, Jr., et al.

Nos. 427, 428.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

May 7, 1962.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1962.

Patrick M. Schott, Edgar Corey, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Charles E. McHale, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before YARRUT, SAMUEL and HALL, JJ.

YARRUT, Judge.

These appeals are by Plaintiff from a judgment dismissing both of her suits, which were consolidated for trial in the district court and here on appeal.

Plaintiff claims title to two separate tracts of land, and has filed in evidence, as the basis of her title (as more fully explained below), a tax deed for one tract of land, described as 'a 1/4 arpent tract.'

Defendants-Appellees are the heirs of the tax debtor Jean Parquet, whose property was sold by the sheriff and ex-officio tax collector of St. Charles Parish for the unpaid taxes assessed and due for the year 1931, the sale having been made to Plaintiff on February 4, 1933, under Act 170 of 1898 (as amended), LSA-R.S. 47:1901 et seq.

In suit No. 428 Plaintiff alleges she acquired by that sheriff's deed (above recited) the property described as:

'A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND, situated in St. Charles Parish, on the left bank of the Mississippi River, about 30 miles above the City of New Orleans, measuring 3/4 arpent front on said river, bounded above by the property of Jules Victor and below by the property of Paul Lewis, together with all rights, ways, privileges, servitudes and advantages thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining;

that Defendants are in possession without title, and prays they be ordered to deliver full and undisputed possession to her.

Defendants denied all of Plaintiff's claims, except that they (Defendants) are in physical possession of the property.

In suit No. 427 Plaintiff alleges ownership of the property described as:

'A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND, situated in the Parish of St. Charles, State of Louisiana, on the left bank of the Mississippi River, about 30 miles above the City of New Orleans, measuring one arpent front on said river by a depth to the 40 arpent line, bounded above by the property of Jules Laurent and below by the property of Mary Joseph, together with all rights, ways, privileges, servitudes and advantages thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining;'

which she alleges she acquired by the same sheriff's tax sale and deed of February 4, 1933 (heretofore referred to), on which she lived, and enjoyed physical possession of, since her purchase; and prays for its confirmation under Art. X, Sec. 11, Constitution of 1921, LSA, and Act 277 of 1952, LSA-R.S. 47:2228.1; that, since Jean Parquet, tax debtor, died in 1920, his succession was opened, and his heirs put in possession of his estate. Plaintiff then prays they be cited to appear and answer, and for judgment quieting her title to both tracts.

The sheriff's tax deed under which Plaintiff claims title to both tracts described above, was for one tract, under one assessment, described as:

'A tract 1/4 arpent front by 40 deep--house, 19 acres.'

Notwithstanding these two parcels were separately acquired by Jean Parquet (tax debtor) in separate deeds from different owners on October 2, 1880, and January 21, 1895, respectively, and are located more than a mile apart, they were assessed and sold under the one description, as above quoted.

Defendants contend that the description in the tax deed to Plaintiff does not refer to, or reasonably identify, any of the two tracts owned by Jean Parquet (tax debtor); that at the time Plaintiff acquired the property of Jean Parquet, January 28, 1933, she was the natural tutrix of her five minor children, living and residing with her on the same property; that these minor children were, and still are, the forced heirs of Jean Parquet, as their father, Joseph Parquet, Sr., died subsequent to the death of Jean Parquet and prior to the date of said tax sale; that, as natural tutrix of said minors, it was Plaintiff's legal obligation to protect their interest in said land by paying the taxes due thereon, if any; that said purchase by Plaintiff, therefore, was actually a payment of the taxes for account of the children, as well as for the other co-owners and co-heirs of Jean Parquet; and, in the alternative, if Plaintiff should be held to have acquired an interest in the tax sale, then Defendants aver that the statutory periods of redemption and peremption have not run in Plaintiff's favor as Plaintiff's children, together with most of the co-owners and co-heirs, continued to reside and live upon these tracts; which occupancy acted as a suspension of prescription; that even to this date, Defendants' co-owner and co-heir Dorothea Parquet continues to reside on the tract of land to which Plaintiff is claiming ownership; that approximately one year after the date of said tax sale, Defendant Jean Parquet, Jr. and some of the other co-heirs, went to the courthouse in Hahnville and consulted with the sheriff in order to clear the estate's property from the effect of the tax sale to Plaintiff; that they had with them the necessary cash money to reimburse Plaintiff for the taxes which she had paid; that the sheriff contacted Plaintiff at that time to come over and redeem said property to the estate of Jean Parquet; that Plaintiff thereupon told the sheriff that she had simply protected the property by paying the taxes and that it was not necessary that she be reimbursed at that time.

Defendants filed a supplemental answer alleging that on February 4, 1933, the date of said tax sale, and during the year 1931, the year in which the taxes were allegedly delinquent, Jean Parquet, was deceased, having died intestate in the year 1920 in the Parish of St. Charles; that it was not until many years later that his succession was opened; that it was impossible for the tax collector for the Parish of St. Charles to serve the necessary notice of delinquency upon Jean Parquet because he was dead; further, that no notice of delinquency of the 1931 State and Parish taxes was ever served on any of the heirs of Jean Parquet prior to said tax sale; that the failure to...