## Facts

- Frank T. Howard and the Howard Memorial Library Association (HMLA) owned and operated the Howard Memorial Library in New Orleans in the late 1800s.
- Howard constructed an annex next to the library to house a collection of materials related to the Confederacy; the annex later became known as the “Confederate Museum.”
- The Louisiana Historical Association (LHA) sought a location for its own Confederacy-related collection.
- In an 1891 speech, Howard stated that he would allow the LHA to use the annex “forever,” after which the LHA took possession and operated the museum beginning in 1891.
- Over many years, the LHA acknowledged that HMLA retained ownership of the annex, including in internal discussions and in dealings with HMLA.
- In 1931, LHA and HMLA entered an agreement addressing shared use of part of the building; MHMI later characterized this as an act showing LHA acted as owner.
- HMLA, as record owner, later conveyed the property to the University of New Orleans Foundation (UNO Foundation).
- Memorial Hall Museum, Inc. (MHMI), the successor to LHA, sued the UNO Foundation claiming ownership based on (1) an alleged donation arising from Howard’s 1891 statement or (2) thirty-year acquisitive prescription.

## Issues

1. Whether Howard’s 1891 statement that the LHA could use the annex “forever” constituted a valid donation transferring ownership of an immovable.
2. Whether MHMI (through LHA) acquired ownership by thirty-year acquisitive prescription based on long-term occupancy and asserted acts of ownership.
3. If acquisitive prescription accrued, whether MHMI (through LHA) later renounced it.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for the UNO Foundation.
- The court held there was no valid donation transferring ownership of the immovable to LHA/MHMI.
- The court held MHMI did not establish thirty-year acquisitive prescription because the possession was permissive and not “as owner,” as shown by repeated acknowledgments of HMLA’s ownership.
- Having found no donation and no acquisitive prescription, the court did not reach renunciation.

## Legal Principles

- A donation of immovable property requires compliance with Louisiana’s formal requirements for transferring title; an informal statement allowing perpetual use does not convey ownership.
- Thirty-year acquisitive prescription of immovables requires possession that is continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal, and—most importantly—possession “as owner.”
- Possession that begins and continues by permission of the owner (precarious possession) generally cannot ripen into prescriptive ownership without a clear change in the nature of possession.
- A possessor’s acknowledgments that another party owns the property are strong evidence that possession is not “as owner” and support summary judgment against a prescriptive-title claim.
- Summary judgment is proper when the claimant lacks evidence creating a genuine dispute on essential elements of donation or prescriptive ownership.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the LHA’s decades-long operation of the Confederate Museum stemmed from permission to use the annex rather than a formal transfer of title, and that LHA/MHMI’s repeated acknowledgments of HMLA’s ownership defeated any claim of possession “as owner”; therefore, MHMI could not prove a donation or thirty-year acquisitive prescription, and the UNO Foundation retained ownership.


Memorial Hall Museum, Inc. v. University of New Orleans Foundation, 847 So. 2d 625 (2003)