## Facts

- Rogerist L. Romero and Carol Lynn Romero purchased a tract of land in 1987 in Sabine Parish near Toledo Bend Reservoir.
- The Romeros believed their purchase included all land within certain visible boundaries on the ground.
- Unknown to the Romeros, a separate family apparently owned a forty-foot strip adjacent to the Romeros’ tract that nevertheless lay within the boundaries the Romeros thought marked their property.
- From 1987 forward, the Romeros possessed and used all land within those boundaries, including the forty-foot strip, believing it was part of their tract.
- In 2006, Lyn Baker purportedly bought the forty-foot strip from her relatives for $10.
- Baker notified the Romeros that she claimed ownership of the strip and stated she would send a surveyor to survey the area.
- The Romeros disputed Baker’s claim and refused to allow the surveyor onto their land to access and survey the disputed strip.
- Baker filed a petition seeking injunctive relief related to the dispute and survey access, and additional proceedings followed.
- The case ultimately proceeded to trial with Baker asserting a petitory claim of ownership based on a chain of title that she contended extended back to an 1885 sheriff’s tax sale.
- After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed Baker’s petitory demand for failure to prove ownership and granted relief recognizing the Romeros’ right to possess the strip.
- The trial court granted Baker a new trial to allow additional evidence, but again found she failed to carry the petitory burden and left the judgment in the Romeros’ favor in place.
- Baker appealed.

## Issues

1. When the defendants are in possession, did Baker, as petitory plaintiff, prove ownership of the disputed strip “against the world,” including by showing a sufficient chain of title (typically traced to a sovereign grant or otherwise adequate under Louisiana law)?
2. Did the trial court correctly grant relief in favor of the Romeros on their possessory claim based on their long-term, continuous possession of the strip as non-precarious, good-faith possessors?
3. Could Baker rely on Badeaux v. Pitre to lessen her petitory burden, or was that decision limited to disputes involving a precarious possessor?
4. Were any of Baker’s procedural or evidentiary complaints barred on appeal because they were not properly raised in the trial court?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit affirmed.
- The court held Baker failed to meet the heightened petitory burden that applies when the defendant is in possession: proving ownership good against the world.
- Baker’s proof, centered on a claimed chain beginning with an 1885 sheriff’s tax sale, did not establish the kind of title proof required to prevail against possessors; in particular, she failed to show a chain that traced back to a sovereign grant or its legal equivalent for petitory purposes.
- The court affirmed judgment recognizing the Romeros’ right to possess the strip based on their actual, continuous possession within the boundaries they believed they purchased, starting in 1987.
- The court rejected Baker’s reliance on Badeaux v. Pitre because that case involved a precarious possessor; the Romeros were not precarious possessors but parties asserting their own possessory rights in good faith.
- The court declined to consider certain arguments not properly preserved in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- In Louisiana, when the defendant is in possession, a plaintiff in a petitory action must prove ownership good against the world, not merely a better title than the possessor.
- To satisfy that burden, the plaintiff generally must trace title back to a sovereign grant or otherwise prove a chain of title sufficient to establish ownership against all claimants.
- A chain founded on a tax sale, without proof meeting the “against the world” standard, may be inadequate to defeat a possessor’s position.
- A possessory claim may succeed where the claimant shows actual, continuous, peaceable possession as required by Louisiana law; good-faith possession under an asserted boundary is not the same as precarious possession.
- Badeaux v. Pitre does not reduce the petitory plaintiff’s burden when the defendant is not a precarious possessor.
- Appellate courts generally will not review procedural or evidentiary complaints that were not distinctly raised and preserved in the trial court.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Baker’s petitory claim because, with the Romeros in possession, Baker did not prove ownership good against the world through a legally sufficient chain of title, and it affirmed judgment recognizing the Romeros’ right to possess the disputed forty-foot strip based on their long-standing, good-faith possession within the boundaries they believed they had purchased.


Baker v. Romero, 55 So. 3d 1035 (2011)