## Facts

- In 1968, Levi L. Crowe, Jr. sold Karl Mire rural land; before the sale they walked the boundaries, and Crowe indicated both a two-acre parcel (“Lot 6”) and an adjacent hill area located in “Lot 7.”
- The written act of sale described only “Lot Six.”
- After the sale, Mire fenced an area that included Lot 6 and the hill area and performed consistent acts of possession over many years, including surveying, hunting, fishing, grazing animals, and constructing a barn on the hill area.
- Crowe and friends occasionally crossed the hill area to reach Crowe’s nearby camp.
- In August 1981, after Mire leased the fenced property for keeping horses, Crowe told Mire’s lessee that Crowe owned “the hill” and that the lessee must stop building or developing on it.
- In December 1981, Mire filed a possessory action alleging Crowe disturbed his possession of the hill area.

## Issues

1. Whether Mire proved the elements required to maintain a possessory action, including peaceable, uninterrupted possession for more than one year and timely suit within one year of the disturbance.
2. Whether Crowe’s statements and interference with Mire’s lessee constituted a legally actionable disturbance of Mire’s possession.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Mire.
- Mire established peaceable and uninterrupted possession of the disputed hill area for more than one year before the 1981 confrontation.
- Crowe’s assertion of ownership to Mire’s lessee and attempt to stop development constituted a disturbance in fact.
- Mire filed suit within one year of the disturbance, satisfying timeliness requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A possessory action requires proof that the plaintiff: (1) possessed the immovable at the time of disturbance, (2) possessed it peaceably and without interruption for more than one year, (3) suffered a disturbance in fact or in law, and (4) filed suit within one year of the disturbance.
- Continuous, visible acts of dominion—such as fencing, surveying, constructing improvements, grazing animals, and recreational use—support a finding of peaceable and uninterrupted possession.
- A disturbance in fact includes physical acts that interfere with quiet enjoyment of possession, including acts that obstruct the possessor’s use by directing a third party to cease activity on the property under a competing claim of ownership.
- Sporadic, minor entries by an adverse claimant, especially when unknown to the possessor, do not necessarily defeat peaceable possession.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Mire’s possessory rights to the disputed hill area because his long-term fenced use and dominion satisfied the possession elements, and Crowe’s 1981 interference with Mire’s lessee was a timely sued-upon disturbance in fact, without requiring adjudication of title.


Mire v. Crowe, 439 So. 2d 517 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983)