Roba, Inc. VS Mona Lackmann Courtney and James B. Courtney, II
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 0509 ROBA INC VERSUS MONA LACKMANN COURTNEY AND AMES B COURTNEY II On Appeal from the 21st Judicial District Court Parish of St Helena Louisiana A t Peggy Docket No 16068 Division F Honorable Elizabeth P Wolfe Judge Presiding M H Robinson Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Appellant Plaintiff Roba Inc Patrick K Reso Frank J Divittorio Attorneys for Appellees Defendants Seale William C L Ross P Hammond LA Hall and Lori B Hall BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ Judgment rendered August 30 2030 PARRO 7 The plaintiff appeals a judgment sustaining an exception raising the objection of prescription in favor of two defendants and denying its motion for a preliminary injunction relative to an alleged servitude of passage Factual Backaround and Procedural Historv In 1988 Roba Inc Roba purchased a 12 tract of land from James acre Courtney II and his wife To the east of the 12 tract of land and adjacent acre thereto was a 49 tract that had been purchased by Robert L Lucien from acre 9678 the Courtneys in 1987 that fronted on Highway 1047 In connection with the sale of the 12 tract a document entitled Agreement for Right of Way the 1988 acre agreement was executed on an unspecified day in May 1988 by the Courtneys only even though Roba was a named party to the document In that document it was declared that they will establish the Right of Way from the lake property to Louisiana Highway 1047 on the North side of the Roba Inc property not to be included in the Roba Inc property The Courtneys agree that the Right of Way will be created on the property they own on the North side of the Roba Inc property the legal description of which was provided This document was recorded on the same day as the deed May 18 1988 in conveyance book number 176 page 674 instrument number 062686 in the official records of the parish of St Helena In 1992 Roba purchased a 51 tract of land from the Courtneys That acre 3449 tract included a lake and borders Roba 12 tract to the west and the south The s acre 1992 cash deed does not refer to any right associated with the sale Neither way of the 1988 nor the 1992 deeds reflected that those tracts were burdened by a servitude On April 30 1998 Roba filed suit against the Courtneys for specific performance seeking to enforce the 1988 agreement and its provision allegedly requiring the That deed was recorded on May 18 1988 in conveyance book number 176 page 670 instrument number 062683 in the official records of the parish of St Helena Z Mr Lucien was the vice president and secretary of Roba at that time 3 In connection with the 1987 deed an agreement similar to the 1988 agreement had been executed 6y the Courtneys only even though Mr Lucien was a named party to the document 4 A title examination pertormed by an attorney in connection with Roba 1992 purchase revealed that s here is t no right of way from the above said property to a public road 2 establishment of a way of right On November 2 1998 Roba supplemented and amended its petition to add as defendants Mitchell R Radecker and his wife who had purchased from the Courtneys on July 28 1998 a 12 tract bordering Roba acre 87 s property to the north that was allegedly subject to the proposed east right west of way to be established pursuant to the 1988 agreement Roba alleged that a plat of survey attached to the Radeckers deed disclosed that a portion of the tract was burdened with a right of an undetermined size along the south property line in favor of Roba way of and Mr Lucien A default judgment was confirmed on June 2 1999 against the Radeckers recognizing a 30 right along the southern boundary line of wide way foot of their 12 tract as shown in a June 2 1998 survey by Robert G Barrilleaux acre 87 Associates Inc registered in conveyance book 222 page 177 in the official records of St Helena Parish Pursuant to an August 24 2001 deed Tony L Noto Jr and his wife bought two tracts of land from Mr Courtney Those tracts bordered the northern side of Mr s Lucien properry In the 2001 deed the Notos acknowledged that this property was burdened by a servitude described in an agreement recorded in conveyance book 170 page 638 of the official records of St Helena Parish On December 22 2004 the Radeckers sold their 12 tract to William J acre 87 and Lori B Hall who were the owners of an adjacent 10 tract to the north In acre 5 connection with the 2004 sale a title examination was performed by the same attorney who rendered a title opinion in connection with the 1992 sale to Roba The 2004 opinion indicated that the Radeckers title was subject in pertinent part to the following 3 Right of way granted to owners of Lake Property from Louisiana State Highway to Lake as reserved in that sale and partition agreement between Mr Courtney his mother and his siblings and duly recorded at Conveyance Book 87 Page 88 in the records of the St Helena Parish Clerk of Court February 13 1974 5 That survey was not offered into evidence 6 That act reflects that the Courtneys were divorced by this time The Halls had purchased that tract on May 29 1996 A May 18 1998 survey map of that tract reflects a barbed fence surrounding most of the 10 tract It also disclosed the existence of a 12 wire acre 5 foot gravel driveway extending south from Idle Lane a 14 public gravel road to the south property line foot near the Hall shome 3 4 Right of way granted by the Courtneys across property to North of ROBA Inc and in favor of ROBA Inc from Lake Properry to Louisiana Highway 1047 dated May 1988 and duly recorded at Conveyance Book 176 674 Page 5 Reaffirmation of right of way for owners of Lake Property as contained in that judgment of possession for the Succession of Virclie May Durnin Courtney and being duly recorded at Conveyance Book 195 Page 325 in the records of the St Helena Parish Clerk of Court January 23 1992 6 ReafFirmation of right of way for owners of Lake Properry as contained in an act of sale from Mr Courtney sister to Mr s Courtney dated 7anuary 22 1992 and recorded at Conveyance Book 195 page 341 in the records of the St Helena Parish Clerk of court February 25 1992 7 Reaffirmation of right of way for owners of Lake Property as contained in that deed from Mr Courtney brother to Mr s Courtney dated January 22 1992 and recorded at Conveyance Book 195 page 343 in the records of the St Helena Parish Clerk of court February 25 1992 10 Apparent but unrecorded rights of way for passage utilities and drainage 11 The map and survey of the 12 acre tract of property belonging 87 to the Radeckers and recorded at Conveyance Book 222 Page 177 indicates that there is a shed located on the hereinabove described tract of property that appears to be located within the right of way apparently established by ROBA Inc as set forth hereinabove 12 There is noted on the map and survey of the 12 acre tract of 87 property belonging to the Radeckers and recorded at Conveyance Book 222 Page 177 a private gravel road that may indicate a servitude of passage to and from the property Lake Property On February 22 2006 Roba filed a second supplemental and amending petition adding the Notos as defendants In that supplemental and amending petition Roba asserted for the first time a claim for damages and attorney fees against all of the defendants The Courtneys filed an exception raising the objection of prescription as to s Roba claims for damages and attorney fees On January 10 2007 Roba supplemented and amended its petition a third time to add the Halls as defendants and to assert a claim against the Courtneys the Radeckers the Notos and the Halls seeking to enforce its alleged right predial use of 4 servitude dating back to 1974 which provided access to Idle Acres Lane Roba urged that a north right to Idle Acres Lane allegedly provided ingress and egress south of way to the lake properry from Highway 1047 Roba alleged that it had used that servitude up to the property line only and that the placement of a fence had denied it access to the rest of the servitude Roba averred that although the north right was south of way not reflected in either of its deeds the right was mentioned in the 2004 way of conveyance from the Radeckers to the Halls In their answers the Notos and Radeckers urged that Roba claims for damages s and attorney fees had prescribed The Radeckers also questioned whether Roba had a cause of action against them since the property in question had been sold to the Halls The Halls filed an exception urging the objection of no cause or no right of action based on the extinguishment of the servitude due to common ownership by Mr Courtney of all of the tracts of land which formerly belonged to his parents In their supporting memorandum the Halls stated that following the death of Mr Courtney sfather the estate was partitioned and a right was given to family members for purposes of way of accessing the lake Based on Mr Courtney ssubsequent ownership of all the property the Halls urged that the right to the lake was extinguished by confusion way of As to the proposed right running from east to west the Halls averred that Roba had a way of closer more direct and less inconvenient path to Highway 1047 via Roba and Mr s s Lucien property The Halls later filed an exception urging Roba failure to join a s necessary party the Lucien Family Trust needed for just adjudication of the matter With respect to the Courtneys exception of prescription regarding the second supplemental and amending petition following a hearing the trial court sustained the Courtneys exception and dismissed Roba claim against them for damages and s attorney fees Additionally after finding that Roba had the right as a landowner to seek a servitude of access and that Roba had stated a cause of action the trial court overruled the exceptions filed by the Halls Roba filed a motion for new trial with e In December 1997 Mr Lucien transferred his property to the Lucien Family Trust 5 I respect to the prescription issue which was denied On August 31 2007 Roba sought the issuance of a preliminary injunction to prevent the Halls from physically blocking the 1974 predial servitude that allegedly provided Roba with access to the public road The Halls then filed an exception raising the objection of prescription relative to the claims asserted against them in Roba third s supplemental and amending petition contending that the alleged 1974 servitude providing access to Idle Acres Lane was extinguished by liberative prescription for nonuse for a period of 10 years or more After a hearing on the issue of nonuse for a period of more than 10 years Roba motion for a preliminary injunction was denied s the Halls exception raising the objection of prescription regarding the third supplemental and amending petition was sustained and Roba claims against the Halls s in that petition were dismissed Roba appealed contending the trial court erred in 9 Roba has separately appealed the judgment dismissing its claims against the Courtneys for damages and attorney fees on the basis of prescription See Roba Inc v Courtnev 09 La App lst Cir 0508 10 10 8 So3d I The Notos joined in the Halls exception Notably the claims against the Halls in the third supplemental and amending petition relate to more than just the 1974 servitude iZ An appeal may be taken as a matter of right from an order or judgment relating to a preliminary injunction LSA art 3612 An appeal from such a judgment must be taken within 15 days from P C C the date of the order of judgment LSA art 3612 This 15 delay does not commence to P C C day run until the judgment is signed See Metro Riverboat Assoc Inc v Hilton Hotels Coro 99 La 2271 App 4th Cir 11 746 So 809 811 Marlbrough v Zar 98 La App Sth Cir 5 713 99 10 2d 38 98 27 2d So 1163 1164 Generally however the maiiing of notice of judgment not the signing of judgment itself acts as the triggering event for commencing the delay for filing both suspensive and devolutive appeals Fraternal Order of Police v City of New Orleans 02 La li 1801 02 8 831 So 897 900 2d P C LSA art 2087 In this case the judgment denying Roba request for a preliminary injunction A s was signed on January 25 2008 and notice of judgment was mailed on February 7 2008 Accordingly the motion for appeal relative to the denial of Roba motion for a preliminary injunction filed on February s 22 2008 was timely Relative to the Halls exception since the trial court rendered a partial judgment as to less than all of Roba claims against the Halls the judgment did not constitute a final judgment and it was not s designated as a final judgment by the trial court See LSA art 1915 An interlocutory P C B judgment is appealable only when expressly provided by law LSA art 2083 The interlocutory P C C judgment relating to the peremptory exception filed in this case is not appealable Since Roba appeal of s the denial of its motion for preliminary injunction is a restricted appeal Roba had no right to include an appeal of the interlocutory judgment on the exception urging the objection of prescription As a result this court has no appellate jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the portion of the judgment related to the Halls exception Nonetheless this court has discretion to convert an appeal to an application for supervisory writs See Stelluto v Stelluto OS La 6 914 So 34 39 0074 O5 29 2d In the present case the trial court rendered a decision on the Halis exception in open court at the November 16 2007 hearing Roba filed a motion for devolutive appeal from that ruling on December 12 20D7 within the 30 delay provided day for seeking supervisory writs See URCA Rule 4 LSA art 1914 Accordingly we will convert 3 C P the appeal of the November 16 2007 interlocutory ruling relative to the Halls exception to an application for supervisory writs and consider it under our supervisory jurisdiction 6 sustaining the Halls exception and denying its motion for a preliminary injunction Discussion Voluntary or conventional servitudes are established by juridical act prescription or destination of the owner LSA art 654 Conventional servitudes accordingly C may arise from bilateral or unilateral juridical acts See LSA art 654 Revision C 1977 Comments comment b A predial servitude is a charge on a servient estate for the benefit of a dominant estate C LSA art 646 The two estates must belong to different owners There must be a benefit to the dominant estate C LSA art 647 Id There is no predial servitude if the charge imposed cannot be reasonably expected to benefit the dominant estate Id The owner of the servient estate is not required to do anything C LSA art 651 His obligation is to abstain from doing something on his estate or to permit something to be done on it He may be required by convention or by law to keep his estate in suitable condition for the exercise of the servitude due to the dominant estate Id Predial servitudes may be established by an owner on his estate or acquired for its benefit The use and extent of such servitudes are regulated by the title by which they are created C LSA art 697 In the absence of such regulation they are governed by the rules set forth in LSA arts 698 through 774 See LSA art C C 697 Predial servitudes are established on or for the benefit of distinct corporeal immovables C LSA art 698 A right of passage is an example of a predial servitude See LSA art 699 The servitude of passage is the right for the benefit C of the dominant estate whereby persons animals or vehicles are permitted to pass through the servient estate Unless the title provides otherwise the e of the right ent and the mode of its exercise shall be suitable for the kind of traffic necessary for the reasonable use of the dominant estate C LSA art 705 Affirmative servitudes are 13 Predial servitudes are real rights burdening immovables The creation of these rights requires the existence of two distinct immovables belonging to different owners These rights are for the benefit of an immovable rather than a person LSA art 646 Revision Comments comment b C 1977 The estate burdened with a predial servitude is designated as servient the estate in whose favor the servitude is established is designated as dominant comment d 7 C LSA art 646 Revision Comments 1977 those that give the right to the owner of the dominant estate to do a certain thing on the servient estate Such are the servitudes of right of way drain and support LSA C art 706 The establishment of a predial servitude by title is an alienation of a part of the property to which the laws governing alienation of immovables apply 708 C LSA art Predial servitudes are established by all acts by which immovables may be transferred C LSA art 722 A predial servitude may be established on a certain part of an estate if that part is sufficiently described LSA art 727 Doubt as to C the existence extent or manner of exercise of a predial servitude shall be resolved in favor of the servient estate LSA art 730 C A predial servitude such as a servitude of passage is preserved by the use made of it by anyone even a stranger so long as it is used as appertaining to the dominant estate C LSA art 757 Palace Properties L v Sizeler Hammond C Square Limited Partnership 01 La App ist Cir 12 839 So 82 94 2812 02 30 2d writ denied 03 La 4 840 So 1219 The use of the language so long 0306 03 2d as it is used as appertaining to the dominant estate has been interpreted by this court as requiring that someone must use the servitude for the purpose of going onto the servient estate for some legitimate purpose either to see the owner or for something connected with the use of the servient estate See Latour v Francis 417 So 485 2d 489 La App lst Cir writ denied 420 So 983 La 1982 2d If a predial servitude is not used for ten years it is extinguished LSA art C 753 Church v Bell 00 La App lst Cir 3 790 So 82 84 n writ 0286 O1 28 2d 3 1214 denied 01 La 6 Ol 15 793 2d So 1247 Prescription of nonuse for an affirmative servitude is measured from the date of its last use C LSA art 754 Palace Pronerties L 839 So at 94 When the prescription of nonuse is pled the C 2d owner of the dominant estate has the burden of proving that someone has made use of the servitude in the manner contemplated by the grant of the servitude and as appertaining to the dominant estate during the period of time required for the accrual of prescription such that no consecutive ten period of nonuse occurred See LSA year 8 C art 764 Palace Prooerties L 839 So at 94 A partial use of a servitude C 2d constitutes use of the whole C LSA art 759 Therefore the use of a part of the area burdened with a predial servitude interrupts the prescription of nonuse as to the entire area A N Yiannopoulos Predial Servitudes 167 at 455 in 4 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise 3rd ed 2004 After reviewing this law and considering applicable jurisprudence the trial court stated And i find that the cause of action alleged in the plaintiff Third s Supplemental and Amending Petition based on the 1974 partition has prescribed The servitude elapsed for a period of non for over ten use years The partition with the servitude between the family properry the Courtney property was in 1974 Lucien and Roba properties And then in 1988 and 1992 I think the And then in 2006 Mr bought were Lucien on behalf of Roba found out about the servitude the long continuous servitude from the road to the lake which the continuous servitude had never been used I heard testimony that Mr Hall used it on his side and maybe Radeckers used it on their side to get to the catch pen fence And then Mr Lucien on his own behalf on behalf of Roba used it on his side to get to the catch pen fence but that it had never been used for the purpose it was set up for from the lake to the road I don find t the plaintiffs carried their burden of proof based on these reasons Notably the record in this case is devoid of the acts deeds and judgment or relied on by Roba to show the creation and continued existence of the 1974 predial servitude Instead Roba simply relied on statements made by the attorney in the 2004 title opinion which referenced many of those documents Title opinions are not evidence of title See Norton v Thorne 446 So 972 974 La App 3rd Cir 1984 2d Accordingly we recognize that the documents in the record are not evidence of title to the servitude of passage in question Furthermore from the record there is no way to tell when the property was commonly owned by the Courtneys Therefore it is impossible to determine whether the 1974 servitude was extinguished by confusion See LSA art 765 C Nonetheless the 1974 servitude that Roba seeks to enforce was seemingly created by title which would have regulated the use and extent of such servitude In the memorandum in support of their exception urging the objection of no cause or no right of action the Halls admitted that following the death of Mr Courtney father the s estate was partitioned and a right was given to family members for purposes of way of 9 accessing the lake This allegedly occurred in 1974 As to the 1974 servitude of passage the Halls have pled the prescription of nonuse therefore Roba as the owner of the alleged dominant estate had the burden of proving that someone has made use of the servitude in the manner contemplated by the grant of the servitude and as appertaining to the dominant estate during the period of time required for the accrual of prescription such that no consecutive ten year period of nonuse occurred Mr Courtney nephew Ken Courtney Jr Ken testified that the Courtney s property was partitioned in 1974 Ken recalled a path from the lake to what is now referred to as Idle Acres Lane According to Ken the path went through the east side of the catch pen located partially on property now owned by the Halis and Roba He recalled having to go through a catch pen to get to the lake Ken testified that use of this path from Idle Acres Lane to the lake ceased when Mr Courtney built the house on the tract of land that was sold to Mr Lucien in 1987 While building the house Mr Courtney built a barn on the top of the hill just before the lake and developed a lane from Highway 1047 due west to the lake According to Mr Hall and Ken after the creation of this path the Courtneys began using it to access the lake Ken explained that the grass was overgrown around the lake up to the Halis property line and there is no visible sign of a road on Roba property s According to Mr Lucien when Roba bought the 12 tract in 1988 there was acre no fence dividing it from the 12 tract now owned by the Halls The fence was acre 87 installed by Mr Courtney with Mr s Lucien help shortly after the 1988 sale Ken explained that a barbed fence was placed through the catch pen to mark the wire property line of Roba s acre 12 tract Mr Hall explained that a fence runs from Highway 1047 along Mr Lucien property then Roba properry then Roba lake s s s property forming one boundary with neighboring tracts to the north As to the fence bordering Mr Lucien and Roba property Mr Hall testified that since May 1988 there s s have been no gates that would allow vehicular access from north to south Mr Hall stated that Idle Acres Lane ends at his mailbox and that a locked gate was placed at this point to prevent robberies 10 From the Halls house to Idle Acres Lane there is a paved and gravel road From the Halls house to the catch pen there is an indentation in the grass indicating use up to the gravel road Mr Hall explained that the indentation in grass toward the catch pen occurred as a result of him driving across his pasture to reach the barn in which he stored tin from leftover jobs According to Mr Lucien there was a gate next to the fence that entered the catch pen that has been used by the Halls Radeckers and Notos to reach Roba s property to retrieve loose cattle Mr Lucien had travelled on the Halls property to and from Idle Acres Lane with their permission to deliver cattle to Roba property but not s as a means of accessing the lake on Roba 51 tract s 3449 acre Mr Lucien admitted that the Courtneys did not promise a servitude to Roba for access to Idle Acres Lane For proof of the 1974 servitude Roba relied on a 2004 title opinion rendered in connection with the sale to the Halis that disclosed the possible existence of a servitude that had been reestablished several times According to Mr Hall Roba has never demanded removal of the fence in the catch pen for purpose of accessing a servitude to Idle Acres Lane It was not until 2006 that Mr Lucien learned of the possibility of passing near the Halls home to get to Idle Acres Lane as a means of accessing Highway 1047 Accordingly Mr Lucien explained that he was deceived into not demanding removal of the fence and use of that servitude Mr Lucien explained that he has not stopped anyone from using the servitude on s Roba property that goes to the lake According to Mr Lucien Mr Radecker and his son used the 1974 right when they went fishing in the lake way of Mr Lucien his friends and fishermen accessed the lake by traversing Mr Lucien property and then s s Roba property As to Mr Lucien use of Idle Acres Lane and the Halis property Mr Hall stated s that Mr Lucien came on his property once with permission to retrieve some of his cattle from the front side of the catch pen At that time Mr Lucien did not cross onto Roba s 16 The attorney who prepared the title opinion testified that in his title opinion he merely reiterated the findings from public records that were provided in an abstract that is that a right was granted to way of owners of the lake property from the highway to the lake pursuant to a sale and partition agreement that was duly recorded at book 87 page 88 with a notation of February 13 1974 attorney stated that he was not giving opinion as to validity of the right way of 11 By his title opinion the property He explained that the second time Mr Lucien came onto his properry was to retrieve a sick cow that was being housed in Mr Hall barn s flatbed trailer to get the cow Mr Lucien came with a According to Mr Hall Mr Lucien has never come through the catch pen onto the Halls property In addition to the 12 tract that they sold to the Halls the Radeckers acre 87 owned and resided on a tract of land that bordered the western side of the Halls property and the northern side of Roba 51 tract Mr Hall explained that s 3449 acre the fence on the Radeckers property line had a gate that was used by the Radeckers to access Roba property for fishing thus it was unnecessary for the Radeckers to make s use of the 1974 servitude which traversed the 12 tract that was transferred to acre 87 the Halls to access the lake After considering this evidence the trial court found that Roba failed in its burden of proof Based on our review of the record we are unable to find that the trial court manifestly erred in finding that Roba failed to prove that someone had made use of the 1974 servitude in the manner contemplated by the creation of the servitude and as appertaining to the dominant estate during the period of time required for the accrual of prescription Under the facts of this case the possible use of a portion of the servitude was not sufficient to interrupt the prescription of nonuse as that use was not shown to be within the extent and manner of the contemplated use and such use was not appertaining to the dominant estate Accordingly this servitude was extinguished by nonuse for 10 years Generally a party seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction must show that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue and must show entitlement to the relief sought this must be done by a prima facie showing that the party will prevail on the merits of the case Jurisich v Jenkins 97 La App ist 1870 This assumes the lake property was the dominant estate and not the servient estate The 1974 servitude of passage in this case was seemingly established for vehicular ingress and egress to enter the lake It was not shown that the servitude had been used tor that purpose during a period in excess of ten years See Palgrave v Gros 02 La App Sth Cir 9 829 So 579 584 249 02 30 2d 19 In so ruling we are mindful that doubt as to the extent or manner of exercise of a predial servitude is resolved in favor of the servient estate See LSA art 730 C 12 Cir 9 722 So 1008 1011 reversed on other grounds 99 La 98 25 2d 0076 99 19 10 749 So 597 Roba cannot do this because any right that it may have had 2d to traverse the area in question has prescribed Decree For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court denying Roba motion s for a preliminary injunction is affirmed Having converted the appeal of the November 16 2007 interlocutory ruling on the Halls exception raising the objection of prescription to an application for supervisory writs to the extent that the trial court dismissed s Roba claims against the Halls relative to the 1974 servitude we deny Roba writ s application However to the extent that the dismissal relates to claims against the Halis relative to the 1988 agreement that were not considered by the trial court in connection with the Halls exception we grant Roba writ application and the s interlocutory ruling is reversed This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion Costs of this appeal are assessed to Roba Inc UDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART APPEAL OF NOVEMBER 16 2007 INTERLOCUTORY RULING CONVERTED TO APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WRIT DENIED IN PART WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND RULING REVERSED IN PART REMANDED 13
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
