## Facts

- Two adjoining parcels, Lots 9 and 10 (Square 9), were used together for a grocery business.
- In 1984, Joseph and Lynn Campagna conveyed Lots 9 and 10 to Richard and Beulah Albert by deed regular in form.
- In 1986, Lot 10 was sold at a tax sale to Raymond Floyd.
- In 1990, the Alberts conveyed Lots 9 and 10 to Ali and Inggub Tabrizi and Susan Zare; in 1991, Zare conveyed her interest to the Tabrizis.
- In 1996, Nhut Van Mai purchased Lots 9 and 10 from the Tabrizis and operated the grocery on the property; the private conveyances after 1984 occurred without a title examination.
- In April 1996, Raymond Floyd filed a petition for monition; in June 1996, a judgment confirmed and homologated the tax sale of Lot 10.
- In 1999, Raymond Floyd sold Lot 10 to his son, George Floyd, who paid property taxes on Lot 10.
- In 2001, Mai attempted to sell both lots; a title examination disclosed the prior tax-sale deed for Lot 10.
- The trial court found Mai was in possession of Lot 10 but dismissed Mai’s declaratory action and declared George Floyd the owner.

## Issues

1. Whether the tax sale and subsequent monition judgment conclusively vested ownership of Lot 10 in Floyd as against a non-party possessor claiming acquisitive prescription.
2. Whether Mai acquired ownership of Lot 10 by ten-year acquisitive prescription through tacking his possession to that of his predecessors under just title and in good faith.

## Decision

- The court of appeal reversed the judgment declaring George Floyd the owner and rendered judgment for Mai.
- The court held that the monition judgment confirming the tax sale did not bar a later-accruing ownership claim by acquisitive prescription asserted by a non-party to the monition proceeding.
- The court concluded Mai and his predecessors possessed Lot 10 openly and continuously as owners, under deeds regular in form constituting just title, and in good faith for more than ten years.

## Legal Principles

- Ten-year acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years, good faith, just title, and a thing susceptible of prescription.
- Just title may be “regular in form” and purport to transfer ownership even if the transferor was not the true owner; such an act can support ten-year prescription.
- Good faith is presumed; the absence of a title examination does not alone defeat good faith where the possessor reasonably believes the vendor owned the property.
- Successive possessors may tack possession to satisfy the ten-year period when possession is continuous and transferred in a manner permitting tacking.
- A monition judgment confirming a tax sale generally perfects the tax title as between parties, but it does not automatically extinguish ownership rights later acquired by acquisitive prescription by persons not made parties to the monition proceeding.

## Conclusion

The appellate court recognized Mai as owner of Lot 10 because he and his predecessors possessed the property as owners for over ten years under just title and in good faith, and that prescriptive ownership was not defeated by a prior tax sale and monition judgment to which they were not parties.


Mai v. Floyd, 951 So. 2d 244 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006)