§4862. Privilege for labor, services, or supplies
A. The following persons have a privilege over the property described in R.S. 9:4863 to secure the following obligations incurred in operations:
(1) A contractor for the price of his contract for operations.
(2) A contractor for the price of his contract for providing services or facilities to persons performing labor or services on a well site located in the waters of the state.
(3) A laborer or employee of an operator or contractor, for the price of his labor performed at the well site.
(4) A person who performs trucking, towing, barging, or other transportation services for an operator or contractor, for the price of transporting movables to the well site.
(5) A person who transports, to or from a well site located in the waters of the state, persons who are employed in rendering labor or services on the well site, for the price of transporting those persons.
(6) A seller for the price of a movable sold to an operator or contractor that is:
(a) Incorporated in a well or in a facility located on the well site.
(b) Consumed in operations.
(c) Consumed at the well site by a person performing labor or services on a well site located in the waters of the state.
(7) A lessor for the rent of a movable leased to an operator or contractor used in operations and that accrues while the movable is located on the well site.
B. The privilege created by this Part is accessory to and secures only the following:
(1) The amount of the obligation described in Subsection A of this Section.
(2) Interest due on the amount of the obligation.
(3) The cost of preparing and filing the statement of privilege and notice of pendency of action authorized by this Part.
(4) The amount of reasonable attorney fees not to exceed ten percent if an attorney is employed to enforce obligations.
Acts 1983, No. 374, §1; Acts 1986, No. 191, §1; Acts 1989, No. 137, §5, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1990, No. 1079, §3, eff. Sept. 1, 1990; Acts 1995, No. 962, §1; Acts 2012, No. 394, §2, eff. August 1, 2012.
Notes of Decisions
Louisiana Materials Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 493 So. 2d 1141 (La. 1986).
· cites it 12× “However, an exception of prescription, first filed by ARCO while the case was on appeal, was granted. As did Source Petroleum in the companion I.”
Hawn Tool Co. v. Crystal Oil Co., 514 So. 2d 636 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 13× “The trial judge concluded Hawn lost its privilege because it did not file a notice claiming the privilege within the statutory period of LSA-R.S. 9:4862. The following issues are presented on appeal: (1) Must a privilege granted by the Oil, Gas, and Water Well Lien Act be…”
Guichard Drilling Co. v. Alpine Energy Serv., Inc., 657 So. 2d 1307 (La. 1995).
· cites it 8× “The Act goes on to provide: The privilege granted under this Part shall be extinguished if: (1) The claimant or holder of the privilege does not preserve it as required by R.S. 9:4862; or (2) The claimant or holder of the privilege does not institute an action thereon within one…”
Genina Marine Servs., Inc. v. ARCO Oil & Gas Co., 499 So. 2d 257 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 6× “R.S. 9:4862 and 9:4865. Genina Marine argues that its suit is timely and further that prescription was interrupted against Arco by the filing of a claim in U.”
Genina Marine Serv. v. Arco Oil & Gas Co., 552 So. 2d 1005 (La. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 5× “[2] Genina failed to file a notice of privilege pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:4862 until January 10, 1984, and did not file suit against Arco pursuant to LSA-R.”
Compadres, Inc. v. Johnson Oil & Gas Corp., 547 So. 2d 382 (La. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “TIMELINESS OF THE LIENS Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in finding the liens were not timely asserted in accordance with LSA-R.S. 9:4862. The trial court found that Act 191 of 1986 (effective August 30, 1986) overruled the prior jurisprudence which held that LSA-R.”
DeBaillon v. Wilson (In re Jack/Wade Drilling Inc.), 213 B.R. 493 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1997).
· cites it 7× “Specialty disputes the liens of the various parties based upon three arguments, namely: (1) that such liens are invalid as each was filed after the rigs were moved from the site; (2) that such liens were not timely filed within 180 days of the last date of the delivery of labor,…”
IE Miller of Eunice, Inc. v. Source Petroleum, Inc., 484 So. 2d 239 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 9× “Source filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action on the basis that the lien sought to be recognized was not recorded within the time prescribed in LSA-R.S. 9:4862. The exception was overruled and the suit was tried on the issue of which charges could be the subject of a…”
Feingerts v. D'Anna (In re D'Anna), 548 B.R. 155 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2016).
“R.S. 9:4862, certain persons acquire a hen or privilege over a mineral leasehold when the claimant begins rendering services at, goods are delivered to, movables or persons are transported to or from, or property leased by the claimant is placed upon the well site.”
Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v. Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys, 862 F. Supp. 1578 (W.D. La. 1994).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 9:4862. The only evidence which we have concerning the description of the property subject to the lien is contained in paragraph 4(b) of plaintiff’s first supplemental and amending complaint.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(12): 1 case
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(A): 3 cases
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(A)(1): 5 cases
Guichard Drilling Co. v. Alpine Energy Serv., Inc., 657 So. 2d 1307 (La. 1995).
“The Act goes on to provide: The privilege granted under this Part shall be extinguished if: (1) The claimant or holder of the privilege does not preserve it as required by R.S. 9:4862; or (2) The claimant or holder of the privilege does not institute an action thereon within one…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(A)(1)(a): 1 case
Guichard Drilling Co. v. Alpine Energy Serv., Inc., 657 So. 2d 1307 (La. 1995).
“The Act goes on to provide: The privilege granted under this Part shall be extinguished if: (1) The claimant or holder of the privilege does not preserve it as required by R.S. 9:4862; or (2) The claimant or holder of the privilege does not institute an action thereon within one…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(A)(2): 2 cases
DeBaillon v. Wilson (In re Jack/Wade Drilling Inc.), 213 B.R. 493 (Bankr. W.D. La. 1997).
“Specialty disputes the liens of the various parties based upon three arguments, namely: (1) that such liens are invalid as each was filed after the rigs were moved from the site; (2) that such liens were not timely filed within 180 days of the last date of the delivery of labor,…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(A)(6): 1 case
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(A)(l): 1 case
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(B)(1): 2 cases
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4862(C): 2 cases
Guichard Drilling Co. v. Alpine Energy Serv., Inc., 657 So. 2d 1307 (La. 1995).
“The Act goes on to provide: The privilege granted under this Part shall be extinguished if: (1) The claimant or holder of the privilege does not preserve it as required by R.S. 9:4862; or (2) The claimant or holder of the privilege does not institute an action thereon within one…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.