after-acquired title doctrine in Louisiana

2017Mayo v. Simon, 94-590 (La.App. 3d Cir. 11/2/94), 646 So.2d 973 , It is well established in Louisiana.

2004This concept is known as the doctrine of after acquired title." Mayo v. Simon, 94-590, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/94), 646 So.2d 973, 975 .

1983Plaintiffs also urge the sale by the Savings and Loan was by quit-claim deed, and thus, under Waterman v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 213 La. 588 , 35 So.2d 225 (1947); and Freeman v. Turner, 373 So.2d 732 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1979), writ refused, 376 So.2d 320 (La.1979), the after-acquired title doctrine does not apply.

1983Plaintiffs also urge the sale by the Savings and Loan was by quit-claim deed, and thus, under Waterman v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 213 La. 588 , 35 So.2d 225 (1947); and Freeman v. Turner, 373 So.2d 732 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1979), writ refused, 376 So.2d 320 (La.1979), the after-acquired title doctrine does not apply.

2025App. 2 Cir. 1/11/17), 211 So. 3d 1242 (emphasis added); accord Rosewood Res., Inc. v. Jonesboro State Bank, 535 So. 2d 1083 (La.

2017Sabine Production Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 432 So.2d 1047 , 1051 n.5 (La.

2006In order to determine whether he acquired title in that manner, it is necessary to determine whether the description in the sale to him includes those tracts, irrespective of the sellers’ [sic] not being owners at that time.” 824 So.2d 1194, 1199 .

2006This court was presented with the question of ownership of certain roadbeds in the case of Lamson Pertoleum v. Hallwood Petroleum, 00-695 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/31/01) , 824 So.2d 1194 .

2006The doctrine of after-acquired title provides that “when a vendor sells property which he does not own and later acquires title, ownership vests in the vend-ee.” Greene v. Greene, 373 So.2d 756, 760 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 377 So.2d 118 (La.1979).

1983In such a case, it might be argued that the vendor would be precluded from subsequently acquiring an adverse title to the prejudice of the vendee under Article 2504 of the Civil Code, which declares that: `Although it be agreed that the seller is not subject to warranty, he is, however, accountable for what results from his personal act; and any contrary agreement is void.' See also Articles 2503 and 2505." 35 So.2d at 233 And in Butler v. Bazemore, 303 F.2d 188 (5th Cir.1962), in discussing the after-acquired title doctrine in the context of certain disputed mineral interests, the court comme

1983In such a case, it might be argued that the vendor would be precluded from subsequently acquiring an adverse title to the prejudice of the vendee under Article 2504 of the Civil Code, which declares that: `Although it be agreed that the seller is not subject to warranty, he is, however, accountable for what results from his personal act; and any contrary agreement is void.' See also Articles 2503 and 2505." 35 So.2d at 233 And in Butler v. Bazemore, 303 F.2d 188 (5th Cir.1962), in discussing the after-acquired title doctrine in the context of certain disputed mineral interests, the court comme

1983R.S. 6:833(E). [8] We note that the Second Circuit, en banc, in Freeman v. Turner, supra, recently held that the after-acquired title doctrine would not apply to a sale without warranty, where the buyer knew of the danger of eviction, and yet purchased at his own risk and peril.

1983Plaintiffs also urge the sale by the Savings and Loan was by quit-claim deed, and thus, under Waterman v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 213 La. 588 , 35 So.2d 225 (1947); and Freeman v. Turner, 373 So.2d 732 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1979), writ refused, 376 So.2d 320 (La.1979), the after-acquired title doctrine does not apply.

1983Plaintiffs also urge the sale by the Savings and Loan was by quit-claim deed, and thus, under Waterman v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 213 La. 588 , 35 So.2d 225 (1947); and Freeman v. Turner, 373 So.2d 732 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1979), writ refused, 376 So.2d 320 (La.1979), the after-acquired title doctrine does not apply.

1983Defendants assert that under La.R.S. 6:833(D) and Hausler v. Nuccio, 214 La. 1069 , 39 So.2d 734 (1949), the sale/resale is an actual sale creating a vendor's lien, and translating title.

1983Defendants assert that under La.R.S. 6:833(D) and Hausler v. Nuccio, 214 La. 1069 , 39 So.2d 734 (1949), the sale/resale is an actual sale creating a vendor's lien, and translating title.

1979L.Rev. p. 543 In Avery v. Allain, 11 Rob. 436 (La. 1845) the doctrine of after-acquired title was not held to benefit a buyer under a quitclaim deed who had knowledge of the danger of eviction.

1976McDonald v. Richard, 203 La. 155 , 13 So. 2d 712 (1943); St.

1976McDonald v. Richard, 203 La. 155 , 13 So. 2d 712 (1943); St.

1970(The same would be true under the doctrine of after-acquired title, see Stokes v. Shackleford, 12 La. 170 (1838), if A had sold to B before A acquired from O.) Since the whole concept of vendor’s privilege does provide a preference for vendors, I am unable to imagine any social or economic purpose which would justify the result of so superlatively easy a defeat of the vendor’s privilege.

1970Through operation of the after-acquired title doctrine, White v. Hodges 201 La. 1 , 9 So.2d 433, 443 , Ramos thus claims that by virtue of this 1901 deed its predecessor acquired title to at least 50% of the property when the Moores acquired it from Berwick in 1908.

1970Through operation of the after-acquired title doctrine, White v. Hodges 201 La. 1 , 9 So.2d 433, 443 , Ramos thus claims that by virtue of this 1901 deed its predecessor acquired title to at least 50% of the property when the Moores acquired it from Berwick in 1908.

1958The language of the instruments is not reproduced but the appellate court said, speaking of the 1920 instrument of conveyance and in operating agreement, “ * * * we are convinced that the instruments taken together clearly evidence a precise and practical acknowledgment of the servitude and that it would be difficult to find instruments, not carrying tbe purpose and intent in express words, which more clearly exhibit ‘the purpose and intention of the parties making the acknowledgment to interrupt the prescription then running.’ ” 112 F.2d at page 467 .