Charrier v. Bell

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit · 1982 · Property

496 So. 2d 601 (La. Ct. App. 1986)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyoccupancyabandonmentburial goodsunjust enrichmentres derelictaecemeterydescendants

Facts

Plaintiff, an amateur archeologist, excavated approximately 150 burial sites on Trudeau Plantation over about three years and removed two to two and one-half tons of artifacts buried with deceased Tunica Indians. He sought to sell the collection but could not prove ownership, and he had initially concealed the true source of the artifacts. He then sued the landowners for a declaration that he owned the artifacts, or alternatively for compensation for his work and expenses. The Tunica-Biloxi Tribe intervened, claiming title as descendants of the historical Tunica people buried at the site.

Issue

Whether burial artifacts interred with deceased Tunica Indians were abandoned property that plaintiff could acquire by occupancy upon excavation, and whether plaintiff could alternatively recover for his excavation efforts under actio de in rem verso. A related issue was whether the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe adequately proved descent from the historical Tunica inhabitants of Trudeau Plantation.

Rule

Under Louisiana occupancy principles, a finder acquires ownership only of things belonging to nobody, including things abandoned by an owner who left them with the intention not to keep them any longer. Burial goods interred with the dead are not abandoned because the intent of interment is that they remain there perpetually, not that they pass to the first stranger who takes possession. For actio de in rem verso, the plaintiff must show enrichment, impoverishment, a connection between them, absence of justification or cause for the enrichment and impoverishment, and no other remedy at law; impoverishment is not the required type when it results from the plaintiff's own fault, negligence, or action taken at his own risk.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural New Mexico, Owen Mercer used a metal detector on privately owned ranchland and uncovered copper bracelets and shell beads placed centuries earlier inside marked graves of an Indigenous community. He removed the objects and claimed title because no living family members still lived near the burial ground.

Who has the better claim to the objects under the rule governing occupancy?

Explanation. Occupancy applies only to things belonging to nobody, including truly abandoned things. Burial goods are not abandoned merely because they were interred and left undisturbed for a long time. The intent of interment is that such objects remain with the deceased perpetually, not that ownership pass to the first stranger who takes possession.