250 So. 3d 372
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- River Rental and Deep South operate adjacent businesses in an industrial park; three streets (Derrick Road, Commerce Street, and an Unnamed Roadway/Oilfield Road) form a U around River Rental's property.
- Deep South purchased a tract in 2014; the deed referenced a June 18, 2013 survey showing "servitudes of ingress and egress" on Commerce Street and the Unnamed Roadway.
- Deep South installed gates in August 2014 blocking Commerce Street and the Unnamed Roadway; River Rental sued for injunctive relief, alleging the public had acquired a servitude over those roads (by implied dedication, statutory dedication, or acquisitive prescription).
- The district court granted temporary and preliminary injunctions, then after a bench trial found a general public servitude existed over Commerce Street and the Unnamed Roadway and issued a permanent injunction ordering removal of the gates.
- Deep South appealed, arguing (inter alia) the court erred on implied dedication, statutory dedication, acquisitive prescription, the cumulation of possessory/petitory claims, reformation/extinguishment of servitudes, and that River Rental was not landlocked.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in finding an implied dedication creating a public servitude; alternative theories were pretermitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied dedication of Commerce St. and Unnamed Rd. | Burmaster subdivided, mapped streets, sold lots with reference to plats; public used roads for 30+ years — shows intent to dedicate and acceptance | No plain and positive intent to dedicate; dedications of Derrick Road but not these roads shows lack of intent | Court affirmed implied dedication: subdivision plats, recorded sales, and long public use show owner intent to dedicate and public acceptance |
| Statutory dedication / acquisitive prescription | Alternately, dedication by statute or acquisitive prescription (30 years of use) created public servitude | Insufficient proof (argued by Deep South) | Not reached on merits — court found implied dedication sufficient and pretermitted these theories |
| Motion in limine: cumulation of possessory and petitory actions | River Rental sought use (servitude), not title or possession; cumulation permitted for asserted relief | Deep South sought to limit evidence and bar cumulation under procedural rules | Denied: court found this was a use/servitude claim governed by Civil Code articles on servitudes, not petitory/possessory rules |
| Extinguishment by confusion (acquisition of dominant & servient estates) | Deep South argued acquiring both estates extinguished servitude under La. C.C. art. 765 | River Rental abandoned servitude-of-ingress-and-egress theory at trial and relied on public servitude; not landlocked | Court treated arguments as inapplicable; judgment silent on confusion implies denial of relief — servitude in favor of general public upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Cenac v. Pub. Access Water Rights Ass'n, 851 So.2d 1006 (La. 2003) (clarifies implied dedication requires owner intent to give and public intent to accept; municipal maintenance not required)
- St. Charles Par. Sch. Bd. v. P & L Inv. Corp., 674 So.2d 218 (La. 1996) (discusses modes of dedication and implied dedication via subdivision plats and sales)
- Garrett v. Pioneer Prod. Corp., 390 So.2d 851 (La. 1980) (addresses dedication concepts and public use)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standards for appellate review of factual findings)
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La. 1978) (deference to trial court factual findings)