Cenac v. Public Access Water Rights Ass'n
2002 WL 31235521, 2002 La. App. LEXIS 2805, 835 So. 2d 560 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, an implied dedication of private property to public use requires proof of the landowner's plain and positive intent to dedicate; a landowner's mere acquiescence or long-term tolerance of public use is insufficient, by itself, to establish such intent.
Facts:
- For approximately 60 years, the public used a private canal, known as Company Canal, and an adjacent boat launch on Golden Ranch Plantation for recreational and commercial access to Lake Salvador.
- The prior owners of the plantation, the Gheens and later the Gheens Foundation, generally tolerated this public use.
- Throughout this period, the prior owners maintained 'private property' signs, instructed employees to keep the property private, retained the right to ask people to leave, and entered into specific lease agreements with certain groups for its use.
- On April 4, 2000, Arlen B. Cenac, Jr. purchased the Golden Ranch Plantation, including the canal and boat launch.
- In October 2000, Cenac attempted to erect a security fence to prevent public access to the boat launch.
- Members of the local community, organized as the Public Access Water Rights Association (PAWRA), physically prevented Cenac from completing the fence.
- Cenac had also previously applied for a permit to install a gate across the canal in May 2000.
Procedural Posture:
- Arlen B. Cenac, Jr. filed a petition for injunction and damages in the trial court against members of PAWRA for trespass.
- Melva Cressionie filed a separate petition against Cenac, claiming a servitude of use over the boat launch.
- The trial court consolidated the two cases.
- PAWRA and Cressionie filed reconventional demands (counterclaims) seeking a declaratory judgment that the public had acquired a servitude of use over the boat launch and canal through implied dedication.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court granted a permanent injunction barring public use of the boat launch, but declared that the canal was burdened by a servitude of public use via implied dedication.
- Cenac appealed the trial court's ruling regarding the canal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit (the intermediate appellate court).
- PAWRA and Cressionie cross-appealed the trial court's injunction barring their use of the boat launch to the same appellate court.
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 a landowner's long-term acquiescence in the public's use of a private canal and boat launch, without more significant acts indicating a donative intent, constitute an implied dedication of the property to public use under Louisiana law?
Opinions:
Majority - Guidry, J.
No. A landowner's long-term acquiescence in the public's use of private property is not sufficient, by itself, to establish the plain and positive intent required for an implied dedication to public use. The court reasoned that implied dedication requires two indispensable elements: a plain and positive intent by the owner to dedicate (the 'offer'), and acceptance by the public. The court clarified that while a landowner's silence or tolerance of public use can be a factor, it is not dispositive and cannot, on its own, prove the requisite intent. There must be other evidence, such as maintenance by public authorities or designations on a recorded plat, that would exclude every other hypothesis except an intent to dedicate. In this case, the prior owners' actions—posting 'private property' signs, entering into private leases, and giving instructions to maintain the property's private character—actively negated any inference that their tolerance of public use constituted an intent to dedicate the property. Therefore, neither the canal nor the boat launch was subject to an implied dedication for public use.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to prove an implied dedication of private property in Louisiana. By holding that mere long-term public use and owner acquiescence are insufficient, the court protects private property rights against claims based on inaction or neighborly tolerance. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for the public to establish rights over private land and waterways without clear, affirmative acts by the landowner demonstrating a 'plain and positive' donative intent. The ruling shifts the legal risk, encouraging landowners that they can permit some public access without forfeiting their property rights, but places a higher burden on the public to prove dedication through more than just a history of use.
