Hymel v. St. John the Baptist Parish School Board
303 So. 2d 588 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a property burdened by a servitude (servient estate) cannot do anything that diminishes the servitude's use or makes it more inconvenient for the servitude's holder (dominant estate). Where a servitude for a right-of-way is created by a contract that specifies its width, any permanent physical encroachment within that specified width is a violation of the servitude holder's rights, regardless of whether the passage remains usable for its intended purpose.
Facts:
- In 1963, Willie Hymel sold a tract of land to the St. John the Baptist Parish School Board.
- In the act of sale, Hymel reserved for himself and his successors a right-of-way, or servitude, 25 feet in width along the western edge of the property to access his adjacent land.
- Lynn Hymel et al. later acquired the adjacent land from Willie Hymel's succession, along with the rights to the servitude.
- The School Board constructed a public school on its property, with the building's roof overhanging the right-of-way by 1.7 to 2.9 feet at a height of 9.5 feet.
- The Hymels use the right-of-way for large agricultural equipment, including cane cutters and haulers that are 13 feet high and up to 20 feet wide.
- In addition to the overhang, the School Board placed other obstacles in the right-of-way, including a fence, drainage inlets, a large ditch, and regularly allowed vehicles to be parked there.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynn Hymel et al. (plaintiffs) sued the St. John the Baptist Parish School Board (defendant) in a Louisiana trial court, seeking an injunction to stop interference with their right-of-way.
- The trial court issued a permanent injunction, granting partial relief to the plaintiffs.
- The trial court ordered the defendant to remove a fence and stop parking vehicles on the right-of-way, but ruled that the defendant was not required to remove the building's roof overhang.
- The trial court also placed restrictions on the plaintiffs' use of the servitude concerning the safety of school children and prohibited two large vehicles from passing side-by-side.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, challenging the decisions regarding the overhang, the use restrictions, and the assessment of court costs.
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 permanent physical encroachment, such as a building's roof overhang, upon a contractually established right-of-way of a specific width diminish the servitude holder's use in violation of their rights, even if the servitude remains passable?
Opinions:
Majority - Schott, J.
Yes, a permanent physical encroachment upon a contractually established right-of-way diminishes the servitude holder's use in violation of their rights. When a right-of-way is created by contract with a specified width, its extent is regulated by that contract, and the owner of the burdened property can do nothing that tends to diminish its use. The school's roof overhang, which is lower than the height of the Hymels' equipment, physically prevents the Hymels from using the full 25-foot width they are entitled to under the contract. The argument that removing the overhang is an 'unreasonable burden' is irrelevant because the servient estate owner is not permitted to diminish the servitude's use in any degree.
Dissenting - Boutall, J.
No, a permanent physical encroachment does not necessarily violate the servitude holder's rights if it does not unreasonably impede the intended use. The court should apply a factual approach to determine if an encroachment actually diminishes the servitude's use or makes it more inconvenient. The trial court found as a fact that the right-of-way can still be used for its intended purpose without the overhang impeding that use, and the record supports this finding. Forcing the School Board to remove the overhang would cast an unreasonable burden upon it when free use of the servitude is still possible.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict interpretation of servitudes established by contract under the Louisiana Civil Code, prioritizing the explicit terms of the agreement over a balancing of interests. The court rejects a 'reasonableness' or 'de minimis' standard for encroachments, establishing that any physical impediment that reduces the contractually specified dimensions of a right-of-way is a per se violation. This provides strong protection for the holders of servitudes, ensuring they receive the full benefit of their bargained-for rights rather than a merely functional or 'sufficiently usable' version. The ruling solidifies the principle that the convenience of the servient estate owner cannot override the explicit contractual rights of the dominant estate owner.
