This appeal arises from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff United States of America, representing the Farm Service Agency, for in rem rights to Defendants’ property due to a defaulted mortgage. The district court found no dispute concerning the government’s status as holder of a valid mortgage or the amount of payment in default. On appeal, defendants argue that the disputed ownership of improvements to the property and the subsequent transfer of portions of the land render summary judgment improper.

We review the district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo. Morris v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 457 F.3d 460, 464 (5th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

Defendants fail to raise any genuine dispute of material fact. First, the alleged ownership of improvements on the mort *434 gaged property is irrelevant to the government’s in rem suit because any such owners would retain their property rights until ninety days after a written demand for removal. See La. Civ.Code 493 (2003). Second, Louisiana law allows a foreclosing mortgage creditor to ignore any post-recording transfers or encumbrances of the mortgaged property. See Dibert v. Marrero, 117 F.3d 160, 175 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the district court properly granted the government’s motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.