Britt Builders, Inc. v. Brister
Louisiana Court of Appeal
618 So. 2d 899 (1993)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Maureen Brister (defendant) bought a lot in Baton Rouge that had a large oak tree. Brister properly recorded the purchase of the lot. Three months later, the development company that sold the lot to Brister sold the same lot to Britt Builders, Inc. (plaintiff). Britt paid an attorney to perform a title search, but the attorney failed to discover Brister’s purchase. After the attorney told Britt that the title for the lot was clear, Britt took possession, cut down the tree, and built a concrete slab on the lot. Two weeks later, Britt discovered that the lot was in fact owned by Brister. Britt immediately stopped work and began negotiating with Brister to mitigate the damages. These negotiations apparently failed. Britt filed suit against Brister to recover damages for Britt’s expenditures and the enhanced value to her lot. Brister filed a reconvention demand seeking damages, including for trespass and damage to the lot. The case finally came to trial almost seven years later. Evidence was given at trial that the concrete slab diminished the value of the lot and that it would be expensive to remove. The trial court dismissed Britt’s claim and ordered Britt to pay damages to Brister for cleanup of the lot and for the removal of the tree, but not for removal of the slab. Brister appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chiasson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.