## Facts

- G.R. Weaver acquired a 2.55-acre lakefront tract in 1947 and built a camp on part of it.
- In 1955, Weaver agreed to sell two lakefront lots: one to Parker (defendants) and one to McCullers (plaintiff’s predecessor). The tract was not subdivided and had no visible boundaries.
- On August 22, 1955, Weaver executed cash deeds to both buyers, but the deed descriptions mistakenly described the camp area rather than the intended lots.
- After discovering the error, defendants consulted an attorney and hired a surveyor to locate the intended lot; the attorney reviewed title and advised Weaver had good title.
- On October 7, 1955, Weaver executed a corrective cash deed to defendants for the intended lot, and defendants reconveyed to Weaver the lot described in error.
- Defendants cleared the property, built a camp, erected a fence consistent with the survey, and possessed the fenced area openly and peacefully from the mid-1950s until 1982.
- In 1972, McCullers conveyed their lot to Phillips (plaintiff); the same erroneous description was repeated through plaintiff’s chain of title.
- In 1982, plaintiff discovered the description in her chain overlapped defendants’ fenced possession by 13 feet when she attempted to place a trailer on her property.
- In a boundary dispute, defendants claimed ownership of the 13-foot strip by ten-year acquisitive prescription, alleging just title, good faith, and continuous possession for more than ten years.

## Issues

1. Whether a purchaser who obtained and relied on a professional title examination can be denied “good faith” for ten-year acquisitive prescription solely because the examination failed to reveal a prior recorded conveyance causing an overlap.
2. Whether defendants satisfied the requirements for ten-year acquisitive prescription to the disputed 13-foot strip.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court and court of appeal.
- The Court held defendants proved ten-year acquisitive prescription and acquired ownership of the fenced area, including the 13-foot strip.
- The Court rejected the rule that obtaining a title examination automatically imputes constructive knowledge of defects sufficient to defeat good faith.

## Legal Principles

- Good faith for ten-year acquisitive prescription is presumed and is evaluated by objective criteria, defined as a reasonable belief of ownership. (La. Civ. Code arts. 3480–3481 (post-1982))
- The presumption of good faith is rebutted only by proof the possessor knew or should have known he did not own the property.
- Reliance on a professional title examination is a circumstance relevant to reasonableness; it does not, by itself, negate good faith because the examiner failed to discover a defect.
- Public-record concepts protecting third parties do not replace the objective good-faith inquiry in acquisitive prescription.
- Where a possessor holds under an apparently valid act of sale, obtains a survey, fences and improves the property, and possesses openly and peacefully for the prescriptive period, acquisitive prescription is established absent proof defeating good faith.

## Conclusion

The court held that defendants’ reliance on professional title work and a corrective deed did not destroy the presumption of good faith, and because plaintiff failed to show defendants knew or should have known of the overlap, defendants acquired the disputed 13-foot strip by ten-year acquisitive prescription and the boundary followed the longstanding fence line.


Phillips v. Parker, 483 So. 2d 972 (La. 1986)