Ashland Oil Co., Inc. v. Palo Alto, Inc.
1993 WL 64651, 615 So. 2d 971 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To interrupt the prescription of non-use for a servitude, the use must be in the manner contemplated by the grant of the servitude and for its intended purpose, not merely a token or symbolic act performed solely to prevent prescription.
Facts:
- In 1980, Ashland Oil Company (Ashland) acquired a pipeline servitude across land owned by Palo Alto, Inc. (Palo Alto) for the purpose of transporting carbon dioxide (CO2) to its Allemania plant to boost methanol production.
- The servitude agreement stipulated that the right of way would terminate if Ashland failed to 'use the same for the purposes herein provided for a period of twelve consecutive months.'
- In July 1984, Ashland ceased methanol production due to unprofitability and 'mothballed' the plant.
- To prevent the 12-month non-use period from expiring, beginning in April 1985, Ashland periodically ran CO2 through the pipeline on an approximately 11.5-month basis.
- During these periodic operations, the CO2 was transported from a supplier plant to the Allemania plant, where it was simply vented into the atmosphere without being used for any productive purpose.
- In 1988, Ashland began using the pipeline again for commercial purposes, first to sell CO2 to a third party and later, in 1989, to resume its own methanol production.
Procedural Posture:
- Ashland Oil Company, Inc. and International Minerals and Chemical Corporation filed suit against Palo Alto, Inc. in a Louisiana trial court seeking to enforce a pipeline servitude.
- Palo Alto, Inc. filed a reconventional demand (counterclaim), asking the court to declare the servitude terminated due to non-use for a 12-month period as provided in the servitude agreement.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Palo Alto, Inc., finding that the servitude had terminated because it had not been used as required by the contract.
- Ashland Oil and International Minerals (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does periodically transporting carbon dioxide through a pipeline and venting it into the atmosphere, solely to prevent the accrual of a contractual 12-month non-use period, constitute sufficient 'use' to interrupt prescription and maintain the servitude?
Opinions:
Majority - Lottinger, C.J.
No. Periodically transporting carbon dioxide through a pipeline and venting it into the atmosphere does not constitute 'use' of the servitude sufficient to interrupt prescription. To interrupt prescription, a servitude must be used in the manner contemplated by the grant, which in this case was the transportation of CO2 for a productive purpose, not simply to preserve the servitude. The court reasoned that Louisiana law requires more than a mere symbolic act; the use must align with the object of the grant. Citing precedent, the court analogized Ashland's actions to a 'mere gesture by the [pipeline] owners to preserve a servitude,' a practice repudiated in Louisiana law. Therefore, Ashland's actions of running gas through the line only to vent it were insufficient to constitute the 'use' required by the contract, and the servitude prescribed for non-use.
Dissenting - Foil, J.
Yes. Periodically transporting carbon dioxide through the pipeline constituted sufficient 'use' under the terms of the agreement. The servitude agreement's specified purpose was 'for the transportation of carbon dioxide.' Ashland did, in fact, transport carbon dioxide through the pipeline. The contract contained no additional requirement that the transported gas had to be used for methanol production or any other specific commercial end. By finding the use insufficient, the majority improperly added terms to the contract that the parties had not agreed upon, making performance more onerous than the written agreement required.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that under Louisiana law, the 'use' required to interrupt the prescription of a servitude must be substantial and consistent with the intended purpose of the grant. It establishes that courts will look beyond the literal act of using the servitude to the underlying object and intent, refusing to validate token or symbolic acts performed solely to circumvent a non-use clause. This precedent reinforces the principle that servitudes are disfavored if not actively and genuinely used, and it cautions servitude holders that they cannot rely on superficial activities to maintain their rights over another's property.
