## Facts

- Maureen Johnson Brister bought and recorded title to Lot 201 in a Baton Rouge subdivision in March 1984, valuing the lot’s unusual shape and a large oak tree.
- In June 1984, Britt Builders, Inc. contracted with the developer to buy the same lot; a title search failed to reveal Brister’s recorded ownership.
- Relying on the erroneous title opinion, Britt took possession, cut down the oak tree, poured a concrete slab, and began framing a house, spending about $10,179.76.
- Britt learned in July 1984 that Brister was the owner, stopped work, and negotiations failed.
- Britt sued Brister seeking recovery for asserted enhanced value; Brister counterclaimed for trespass-related damages, mental anguish, and attorney’s fees.
- Appraisal and contractor evidence showed the slab reduced marketability and value; removal estimates ranged from about $8,000–$10,000 (including a $9,168 estimate).

## Issues

1. Whether Britt qualified as a good-faith possessor when he built on Brister’s lot based on an erroneous but facially valid title opinion.
2. Whether a good-faith possessor may obtain reimbursement for construction costs when the “improvement” diminishes, rather than enhances, the immovable’s value.
3. Whether the slab constituted a continuing trespass requiring damages measured by the cost to remove or otherwise abate the invasion.
4. Whether trespass damages are recoverable despite the builder’s good faith.

## Decision

- The court held Britt was a good-faith possessor at the time he began construction because he reasonably relied on a title search and did not know of Brister’s ownership.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Britt’s demand for reimbursement/enhanced value because the slab and tree removal diminished the lot’s value and marketability.
- The court found the slab’s continued presence constituted a continuing trespass impairing Brister’s use and alienability of the property.
- The court amended the judgment to increase Brister’s recovery to include damages sufficient to remedy the continuing trespass, including the cost of removing the slab, while otherwise affirming.

## Legal Principles

- Good faith in possession is presumed; a possessor is in good faith unless shown to have known or should have known he was not the owner, and reasonable reliance on a title opinion can support good-faith status.
- Civil Code reimbursement options for improvements made by a good-faith possessor are tied to benefit; they do not require an owner to pay for work that decreases the immovable’s value.
- Trespass is an unlawful physical invasion of another’s property; a structure left on another’s land can constitute a continuing trespass.
- Good faith does not bar liability for trespass damages; an owner may recover damages necessary to abate the continuing invasion, including reasonable removal costs.

## Conclusion

The appellate court treated the slab as a continuing trespass and held that, although the builder acted in good faith, the owner was not required to accept or pay for a detrimental “improvement” and was entitled to damages sufficient to remove the slab and restore full use and marketability of the lot.


Britt Builders, Inc. v. Brister, 618 So. 2d 899 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993)