From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...
Phillips v. Parker
Louisiana Supreme Court
483 So. 2d 972 (1986)
G. R. Weaver owned a parcel of lakefront land and built a camp on part of it. In 1955, Weaver decided to sell two lakefront lots from the remainder of the parcel. Weaver sold one lot to the McCullers, who properly recorded the sale. Weaver sold the second lot to the Parkers (defendants). When the Parkers went to the lot after the sale, however, they realized that the description in the deed did not match up with the lot they had intended to buy but rather described the portion of the parcel that contained Weaver’s camp. The Parkers consulted an attorney, employed a surveyor, and followed the attorney’s advice to transfer that lot back to Weaver and obtain a new deed that conveyed the lot they intended to purchase. The description in this new deed, however, actually included a 13-foot strip of land that overlapped onto the lot that Weaver had recently sold to the McCullers. The Parkers’ attorney conducted a title search, but the attorney either failed to find the recordation of this recent sale to the McCullers or failed to examine the actual measurements of the two lots. The Parkers immediately took possession of the lot, built a camp, and the next year built a fence around the entire property, including the 13-foot strip. In 1972, the McCullers conveyed their lot to Phillips. In 1982, Phillips discovered the 13-foot overlap between her property and the Parkers’ property. Phillips asked the Parkers to remove the fence, which was the first time the Parkers learned of the overlap. Phillips brought a boundary action to establish ownership of the disputed strip. The Parkers claimed to have acquired ownership of the disputed slip by acquisitive prescription. The trial court held that the Parkers were in legal bad faith based on the flawed title search, even though it had not revealed the overlap, and held for Phillips. The court of appeal affirmed that judgment, and the Parkers appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lemmon, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 517,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.