## Facts

- Dravo operated an aggregate yard on Mississippi River batture property in Louisiana under an oral lease, storing and selling limestone shipped to the site.
- Dravo created three limestone “working bases” by placing a fabric liner on the batture and piling large quantities of limestone until the weight compressed the batture and the limestone became compacted, forming hardened foundations for later stockpiles.
- After the property was seized and sold at a sheriff’s sale, Bayou Fleet acquired ownership and sought to lease the site, but it and Dravo failed to reach a new lease agreement.
- As Dravo vacated, it removed loose limestone stockpiles and also excavated and removed the three working bases, totaling about 26,000 tons of limestone.
- Dravo filed a state declaratory action claiming ownership of the removed limestone; Bayou Fleet filed a federal damages action. The matters were consolidated and tried to the bench.
- The district court allowed Dravo to remove most limestone in the working bases but found liability for removing the portion deemed part of the land and awarded Bayou Fleet $25,000 in trespass damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the limestone working bases were movables that Dravo could remove when leaving the premises or component parts of the immovable land belonging to Bayou Fleet under Louisiana law.
2. Whether the district court erred by treating most of the working-base limestone as removable rather than as an immovable “other construction” permanently attached to the ground.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held the limestone working bases were component parts of Bayou Fleet’s immovable property under Louisiana Civil Code article 463.
- The court reversed the judgment permitting Dravo to remove most of the working bases.
- The court rendered judgment in favor of Bayou Fleet on ownership of the working bases, rejecting Dravo’s claim of a right to remove them upon vacating.

## Legal Principles

- Under Louisiana Civil Code art. 463, component parts of a tract of land include “other constructions” that are permanently attached to the ground.
- When the Civil Code does not define a category (such as “other construction”), courts classify the item with reference to prevailing societal notions and analogous jurisprudence.
- A large, engineered foundation formed by compacting material into the ground to support ongoing industrial use may be an immovable construction rather than movable inventory.
- Classification of property as movable or immovable is a legal question reviewed de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The court treated Dravo’s compacted limestone working bases as permanent constructions integrated with the land, making them immovable component parts that passed to Bayou Fleet with ownership of the tract; Dravo therefore lacked the right to remove the bases when it left the property.


Bayou Fleet P’ship v. Dravo Basic Materials Co., 106 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 1997)