Alston v. Moore

374 So.3d 277

Katie King ALSTON, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.Betty Jean MOORE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 55,296-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment Rendered November 15, 2023

Appealed from the Thirty-Seventh Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caldwell, Louisiana, Trial Court No. 30205, Honorable Ashley P. Thomas, Judge

ROBERT ANDREW MOORE, Arcadia, Counsel for Appellants Betty Jean Moore and Howard Moore Family Trust

MIXON, CARROLL & FRAZIER, LLC, By: James Eugene Mixon, Columbia, Counsel for Appellee

Before PITMAN, HUNTER, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

MARCOTTE, J.

₁This appeal arises from the 37th Judicial District Court, Parish of Caldwell, the Honorable Ashley Paul Thomas presiding. Defendants, Betty Jean Moore and the Howard Moore Family Trust, appeal the trial court’s judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, Katie King Alston, declaring her the owner of a tract of immovable property through acquisitive prescription. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 18, 2021, Katie King Alston ("Alston") filed a petition to establish title through acquisitive prescription, She named as defendant Betty Jean Moore ("Betty"), individually, and as the independent administratrix of the succession of Robert Howard Moore ("Robert"), Betty’s husband (collectively, "the Moores"). The petition alleged that the Moores were the record owners of an approximately one-acre tract of immovable property located in Caldwell Parish, Louisiana; Alston provided a description of the property in the petition.¹ The property at , issue, 128 Holman Road, Columbia, Louisiana, was a part of a larger piece of immovable property owned by the Moores.

₂Alston alleged that her family had begun possessing the property over 70 years before and that she had sole possession of the property as the owner for a period of time exceeding 30 years. Alston asked that the trial court declare her the owner of the property described. Defendants answered, denied Alston’s claims, and asked the trial court to evict Alston from the property.

On October 10, 2022, a bench trial was held. At the beginning of the trial, defense counsel stated that Robert and Betty acquired the disputed property in 2014. Robert died in 2019 and his succession was closed by the time of trial. Robert created the Howard Moore Family Trust in his will, naming his and Betty’s children, Donald Glen Moore ("Don") and Martha Moore Reynolds ("Martha"), as trustees; the trust was recognized in the succession proceedings. Don and Martha held power of attorney for Betty, their mother.² Martha executed a concurrence, granting Don authority to act as her sole mandatary in the suit against Alston. By joint stipulation, the parties added as defendants the Howard Moore Family Trust and Don Moore, as trastee.

Alston testified that she had lived near the disputed property since 1951. Photographs from before 1975 were admitted, which depicted her family, a single-wide trailer, and Holman Road. Alston originally lived across Holman ₃Road in a trailer on a different piece of property from the tract at issue here.

Alston testified that she got permission from her godfather, J.S. Holman ("Holman"), who had a house on the property and who she presumed owned the property, to put her trailer "in that old pea field" on the property, at 128 Holman Road. Alston placed a mobile home on the property in 1982 and moved onto the land as owner at that time; the mobile home has remained on the property since. She lived there from that time and mowed the grass on the property. No one told Alston that she had to leave the property, move her home, or that she could not be there. A photograph was admitted depicting Alston and her infant son on the property in 1982, the year he was born, with her mobile home in the background. Other photographs were admitted which were taken in 1995 and 1998, showing Alston’s mobile home on the property. Alston received a homestead exemption on the property.

Alston stated that Holman did not give her a deed to the property, but she assumed she was the owner when he told her she could move in and stay there. Holman was retired in 1982 when he gave her the property, and he passed away in 1989 or 1990. Alston said that apart from mowing part of the property, she did not put up any signs, paint any trees, or put up a fence to mark the boundaries of ₄the property, and she did not have a survey done of the property. She affirmed that she could not identify the exact acreage over which she was claiming ownership. Alston possessed the property for herself and no one else, and she mowed around the property up to the tree line.

Alston’s brother, James Earl King ("Mr. King"), testified that Alston moved a double-wide mobile home onto the Holman Road property and no one other than his sister possessed the property. Mr. King said that Alston mowed the yard and that the part of the property she possessed was visible.

Betty King ("Mrs. King"), Mr. King’s spouse, testified that Alston put a mobile home on the property more than 30 years before the, trial. She maintained the yard around the property and no one interfered with her possession of the property. Mrs. King saw Alston about once a month.

Scott Meredith ("Meredith"), the Assessor for Caldwell Parish, testified. A copy of an Assessment Sheet for Alston’s mobile home was admitted, and it stated that the home was on 128 Holman Road and was "located on Manville Property." Meredith stated that he prepared a description of the property that Alston was possessing, which was used in the petition. He based his description upon a visual examination of the property and aerial photographs. The description was admitted. Meredith stated that prior to ₅becoming the parish assessor, he assessed the property for an oil and gas company, Hogan Exploration ("Hogan"), which had a lease on the property from the owner, "the Manville Com- panies." Meredith testified that Hogan leased the property from the 1980s to 2000. When Meredith viewed the property in the 1980s, Alston was living on it in a mobile home and was occupying it as her home. Meredith said that the property was owned at the time by "Plum Creek or Manville."

On cross-examination, Meredith clarified that he only assessed the mobile home to Alston, but the land the mobile home sat upon was assessed to the Moores. The Assessment Sheet for the mobile home excluded "land value." Meredith affirmed that the property description provided in the petition was inaccurate, as it listed the property as being on Elmo May Road. Defendants then had admitted the correct legal description of the property prepared by Meredith. He measured the property from aerial photographs, but did not take ground measurements of the property. Meredith stated that his measurements were approximate and not exact and he did not prepare a survey for the tract of land.

Plaintiff stipulated that the incorrect property description was attached to the petition, and the petition was amended to reflect the correct description. Meredith ₆stated that he provided a general estimate of feet and direction in the property description and a surveyor could provide a metes and bounds description. Plaintiff rested.

Dustin Reynolds ("Reynolds") testified for the defense; at the time of trial, he was employed by the Webster Parish Sheriff’s Office as the Chief of Operations, and was a relative of defendants. Reynolds stated that he visited the property at issue two to three times in the year prior to trial and he evaluated the property, looking at the "boundaries or lack thereof." Defendants had admitted photographs Reynolds took of the property showing Holman Road, a purported boundary of the property, and a mobile home and mailbox. Additional photographs Reynolds took of the property were admitted, which depicted various angles of the property and showed mow lines. Reynolds stated that there were no features, vegetation, signs, or fences, etc., to show any sort of boundary line to the property at issue, nothing that would indicate Alston was claiming ownership of the property.

Reynolds stated that he was able to determine the parameters of the land that Alston was mowing by the length of the grass; he agreed that it was easy to determine, upon viewing the property; which part Alston occupied. Reynolds said that he was not aware of anything the Moores did to maintain the property and that he thought Alston mowing the grass was part of an agreement she had with them. ₇Reynolds stated that the Moore family had never occupied the residence on the property. He testified that a sewer line running from Alston’s home, which was depicted in one of the photographs, was not something the Moores were using; the sewer line came from Alston’s mobile home and emptied into a septic pit that was not on the property Alston was claiming.

Don testified that he went to Caldwell Parish more than two dozen times to view the Holman Road property. He said that Betty, the family trust, and other relatives paid taxes, cut trees, bush hogged, fished the pond, and hunted on the Holman Road property, but not the part of the property that Alston maintained. Don stated that his family never saw fences or signs, or received notice indicating that Alston claimed ownership of the property. He acknowledged that there was a mobile home on the property, part of the property was regularly mowed and maintained, and there was a sewage line running from the mobile home to a septic pit. When the Moores purchased the property, they were aware Alston was living there, and Don was present one time that they visited her on the property. The defense rested.

The trial court then provided an oral ruling. The trial court found that Alston had acquired the land she occupied through acquisitive prescription and that she had corporeal possession of the property from 1982 to 2012. The court ₈stated that Alston was not a precarious possessor....