Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances substitute to close subdivision-recording ‘loophole’ after extended debate
Summary
The committee approved a substitute to HB 793 that would stop the prescriptive period from running when noncompliant subdivision plats are filed, responding to a recent Supreme Court decision; testimony included parish attorneys, planning officials and a property owner who opposed aspects of the substitute.
Representative Tom Muscarello presented a substitute to House Bill 793 to address a loophole created by a recent Supreme Court ruling that treating an unapproved subdivision plat filed with the clerk of court as notice can start prescriptive periods. The substitute would toll (pause) the prescriptive period for filings that do not comply with state law or local ordinances until the parish or municipality is aware and has taken action.
Supporters — including parish attorneys and planning officials — said the substitute prevents bad actors from recording noncompliant plats and waiting five years to claim prescription and development rights. Jean Paul Robert, parish attorney for Ascension Parish, and Ricky Compton, a former planning director, testified that the change is necessary to protect public health and access: unapproved split-outs can lack proper roads, drainage and emergency access.
Opponents raised concerns about property rights and statutory certainty. James McCormick, a landowner who prevailed in litigation related to recorded plats, warned that the substitute as written fails to clearly define when prescription begins and could give local governments open-ended power to determine notice, effectively extending the time they may challenge private property claims. Former appeals judge Jeff Thompson, who wrote the original Court of Appeal opinion in the McCormick case, described the public-records doctrine and urged careful drafting to preserve legal certainty for property owners while closing the specific loophole.
Committee members pressed the author and stakeholders on where the prescriptive period should start, how notice would be verified, and whether clerks of court could practically enforce compliance given electronic filings. Representative Muscarello said the substitute was crafted with input from the police jury association, municipal association and title industry and that the measure will be forwarded to the State Law Institute for additional review.
After extended public comment and discussion, members adopted the substitute and moved HB 793 favorably, while the author committed to continue working with stakeholders to refine definitions and drafting ahead of floor debate.
