Brown v. Hodge-Hunt Lumber Co. - 162 La. 635, 110 So. 886 (1926)

Rule:

Since 1904 La. Acts 188, where timber has been segregated in ownership from the land, there should be separate assessments; the land should be assessed to its owner, and the timber to its owner. This is not true prior to 1904 La. Acts. As long as the then legal ownership of trees standing upon land remains in the owner of the land they must be assessed with the land as forming part of it, and assessors are not warranted in separating, for the purpose of assessment, the trees from the land, and making the trees the direct object of direct taxation, as corporeal movables distinct from the land to which they are attached. This is still the law, so long as the trees remain the property of the owner of the land on which they are standing. But, where the trees and the land have been segregated into two distinct estates, they become separate and distinct immovables, and should be so assessed for purposes of taxation.

Facts:

The land, with the timber thereon, was originally owned by the Huie-Hodge Lumber Company. By an amendment to the charter the name of the company was changed to Hodge-Hunt Lumber Co. On December 4, 1906, the then owner (Huie-Hodge Lumber Company) sold the land to G. A. Woods, reserving unto said company all of the merchantable timber on the land, together with right of way for railroad, wagons, etc., for the removal of the timber. There was no time limit fixed in the deed for the removal of the timber, and no application was ever made to the court to have the timber cut and removed within a fixed and definite period. Some time after his purchase of the land, Woods died, and in 1919 the land was sold for the taxes of 1918, under an assessment in the name of the estate of G. A. Woods. At this sale Dr. W. S. Jones bought the land, and a year thereafter sold the same to Brown. On September 17, 1921, Brown sold the land to T. H. Brown, but repurchased the same on March 24, 1923. The company cut and removed timber from the land. Brown brought a suit for the value of the timber. The trial judge recognized Brown as the owner of the land and timber, and gave Brown judgment for $ 750, being the value of 300,000 feet of timber cut and removed after Brown’s purchase of the land.

Issue:

Was the timber assessed to be part of the tax sale?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

It does not appear that the timber was included in the assessment and valuation of the land as a basis for the tax sale. The timber is not specially mentioned, either in the assessment or the tax deed. The value placed on the land for taxing purposes would seem to indicate that it was not intended to include the timber. From the allegations of plaintiff's petition and the proof in the record, the timber on the land was worth more than eight times the value of the land without the timber. The same may be said in reference to all of the deeds to the land subsequent to the tax deed. In none of these deeds was any reference made to the timber on the land, and price stated in the deeds indicates very clearly that the sale was not to include the timber.

In Williams v. Triche, decided February 3, 1902 it was held that as long as the then legal ownership of trees standing upon land remains in the owner of the land they must be assessed with the land as forming part of it, and that assessors were not warranted in separating, for the purpose of assessment, the trees from the land, and making the trees the direct object of direct taxation, as corporeal movables distinct from the land to which they are attached. This is still the law, so long as the trees remain the property of the owner of the land on which they are standing. But, where the trees and the land have been segregated into two distinct estates, they become separate and distinct immovables, and should be so assessed for purposes of taxation.