## Facts

- Ms. Falgoust owned immovable property in St. James Parish, Louisiana.
- She gave her son-in-law, John Innes (spelled “Inness” in the Southern Reporter), verbal permission to erect a building on her land and operate a garage and gasoline station.
- Innes constructed the building and began operating the business on the premises.
- About eight months after granting permission, Falgoust served Innes with written notice to vacate, apparently after her daughter initiated separation proceedings against him.
- Innes refused to leave, asserting that Falgoust had orally agreed he could occupy and use the land for five years, and that he had spent money and labor in reliance on that understanding.
- Falgoust filed suit to (a) compel Innes to vacate, (b) require him to remove the structures he built (or allow demolition if he failed to do so), and (c) recover rent for each month he remained after receiving notice.
- The trial court rendered judgment for Falgoust on the main demand, ordering Innes to vacate within forty days and authorizing demolition by the sheriff if he did not comply, but rejected Falgoust’s rent demand.
- Innes appealed the judgment ordering him to vacate and remove (or suffer demolition of) the buildings; Falgoust did not appeal the rejection of rent.

## Issues

1. Whether Innes’s claim of an oral agreement allowing five years’ occupancy created an enforceable right to remain on Falgoust’s immovable property after she revoked permission and demanded possession.
2. Whether the court could require Innes to remove the building he erected and authorize demolition in default once the owner withdrew consent and obtained a judgment for possession.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the main demand in favor of Falgoust.
- The court rejected Innes’s contention that he had a legally enforceable five-year right to occupy the land based on the asserted oral arrangement, and treated his occupancy as permissive and revocable.
- The court left in place the order requiring Innes to vacate within forty days and, if he failed to comply, authorizing the sheriff to demolish the buildings he erected.
- The trial court’s rejection of Falgoust’s rent claim remained undisturbed because Falgoust did not appeal that portion of the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Permission from a landowner to use immovable property, without proof of a binding lease or other enforceable interest, is a personal, revocable arrangement that does not prevent the owner from reclaiming possession.
- A party asserting a fixed-term right to occupy immovable property bears the burden of proving the agreement and its essential terms; vague or unsupported oral testimony may be insufficient to defeat the owner’s demand for possession.
- When a person erects improvements on another’s land under revocable permission, and permission is later withdrawn, a court may order the occupant to surrender possession and to remove the improvements within a set delay, with demolition authorized if the occupant does not comply.
- An appellate court reviews only what is properly before it; issues or demands not appealed (such as a rejected rent claim) remain as decided below.

## Conclusion

Falgoust’s verbal consent allowed Innes to build and operate a business on her land, but it did not give him a proven, enforceable five-year right to remain once she withdrew consent and demanded possession. The Court of Appeal therefore affirmed the judgment ordering him to vacate within forty days and permitting demolition of the building if he did not remove it, while leaving intact the trial court’s rejection of rent because that ruling was not appealed.


Falgoust v. Innes, 163 So. 429 (1935)