LeBlanc v. Scurto
1965 La. App. LEXIS 4467, 173 So.2d 322 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A co-owner is entitled to an injunction to prevent another co-owner from using common property in a manner inconsistent with its intended purpose if that use deliberately denies the other co-owners their right to equal and coextensive possession. Such misuse, particularly when motivated by spite or coercion, is considered a form of waste and a trespass upon the other co-owners' rights.
Facts:
- Mrs. Santa Scurto LeBlanc and her brother, Sam Scurto, were co-owners of a commercial property, each holding a one-third interest.
- An alley, approximately 12 feet wide, existed on the property and had been used for at least 14 years as a passageway by tenants and others.
- The property was fully developed with several small shops, including a shoe shop operated by Sam Scurto.
- On May 27, 1964, Sam Scurto parked his car in the alley, blocking it for nearly the entire day.
- Evidence suggested Scurto's motive for blocking the alley was not for a legitimate purpose like unloading goods, but to pressure LeBlanc into selling him her interest in the property.
- The incident resulted in a heated verbal and physical altercation between LeBlanc and Scurto.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Santa Scurto LeBlanc and her husband filed suit against Sam Scurto in the District Court of Terrebonne Parish, seeking an injunction.
- The trial court granted the injunction, prohibiting the defendant from blocking the common alley or interfering with the plaintiffs' right to use it.
- The defendant, Sam Scurto, appealed the trial court's decision to grant the injunction.
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 co-owner's deliberate and prolonged blocking of a common alley, intended to prevent other co-owners from using it, constitute an act against which an injunction may be properly granted to protect the other co-owners' right to equal and coextensive use?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellis, Judge.
Yes. A co-owner's deliberate blocking of a common passageway to deny access to other co-owners is a misuse of the property for which an injunction is a proper remedy. Each co-owner has a right to use common property for the purposes for which it is destined, and the alley was destined for passage, not parking. By blocking it out of spite or to coerce his co-owner, the defendant converted its use and deprived the plaintiffs of their right to equal and coextensive possession. This act is analogous to waste, such as cutting timber, and constitutes a trespass on the rights of the other co-owners. The defendant's proper remedy for seeking exclusive control over any part of the property is a suit for partition, not engaging in self-help to prevent his co-owners from exercising their rights.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the rights of co-owners are not absolute and are limited by the rights of other co-owners to enjoy the property for its intended purpose. It establishes that injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy to prevent a co-owner from using the property in a way that effectively ousts another, especially when motivated by bad faith. By equating the deliberate denial of access to a form of "waste," the court broadened the concept beyond physical destruction to include the deprivation of use. This decision reinforces that partition is the exclusive legal remedy for resolving intractable disputes between co-owners over the use of common property, discouraging extra-judicial tactics like obstruction.
Unlock the full brief for LeBlanc v. Scurto