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 10,000 (including a $9,168 estimate).
Issues
- Whether Britt qualified as a good-faith possessor when he built on Brister’s lot based on an erroneous but facially valid title opinion.
- Whether a good-faith possessor may obtain reimbursement for construction costs when the “improvement” diminishes, rather than enhances, the immovable’s value.
- Whether the slab constituted a continuing trespass requiring damages measured by the cost to remove or otherwise abate the invasion.
- 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.