## Facts

- Mrs. Coralie David was an elderly widow who lived alone in a house she owned and wanted to relocate the house to Breaux Bridge, Louisiana.
- Mrs. David proposed to members of her family that if one of them would (1) provide a lot with a cesspool, (2) pay to move the house, and (3) allow her to live there rent-free for the rest of her life, she would leave the house to that person in her will.
- Mrs. David’s niece, Gloria Marcellous, and Gloria’s husband, George Marcellous, accepted the proposal.
- George Marcellous bought two lots in Breaux Bridge and had Mrs. David’s house moved onto one of them.
- George placed the house on brick pillars, installed a cesspool and connected it to the house’s plumbing, and painted the house.
- Mrs. David executed a will leaving all of her property to Gloria.
- Mrs. David lived in the house rent-free for almost two years and, during that time, made improvements totaling about $1,200.
- After a falling out between Mrs. David and Gloria, Mrs. David arranged for her brother to help remove the house from George’s lot.
- Mrs. David’s brother bought a nearby lot, and the house was moved from George’s property to the brother’s lot.
- George sued Mrs. David seeking return of the house and damages for alleged injury to his land from the house’s removal.
- The trial court rejected George’s ownership and damage claims but awarded him $245 for the cost of moving the house to his lot and painting it, based on unjust enrichment.
- George appealed, and Mrs. David answered the appeal challenging the $245 award.

## Issues

1. Whether Mrs. David transferred ownership of the house to George (or to Gloria) by placing it on George’s land and by the parties’ oral family arrangement, such that Mrs. David could not later remove it.
2. Whether the trial court properly awarded George $245 in restitution for moving and painting the house under unjust enrichment when no valid transfer of the house occurred.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment denying George’s demands for return of the house and for damages related to its removal.
- The court held Mrs. David retained ownership of the house and therefore was entitled to remove it from George’s lot.
- The court affirmed the $245 award to George for the cost of moving the house to his lot and painting it under unjust enrichment.
- The court taxed the costs of the appeal to George Marcellous.

## Legal Principles

- Under Louisiana civil law, constructions on land are presumed to belong to the owner of the soil, but that presumption can be rebutted by proof that the building is owned separately from the land.
- Louisiana law recognizes that a building may be owned by someone other than the landowner when the facts show the parties intended separate ownership and no valid conveyance transferred title to the landowner.
- A donation or other transfer of an immovable requires the form required by the Civil Code (a written act executed with the required formalities); an oral agreement is not sufficient to convey ownership of an immovable.
- A testament has no present effect during the testator’s lifetime and may be changed before death; it does not operate as a current transfer of ownership.
- When one party incurs expenses benefiting another in expectation of compensation that does not occur, a court may award limited restitution under unjust enrichment to prevent one party’s gain at the other’s expense.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Third Circuit held that Mrs. David remained the owner of her relocated house because no written act validly transferred ownership, so she could remove the house from George Marcellous’s lot despite its placement on his land and the parties’ oral family arrangement; however, to prevent unjust enrichment, the court affirmed a $245 award to George for moving and painting costs, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.


Marcellous v. David, 252 So. 2d 178 (1971)