Moore v. Cameron Parish School Bd.
41 Educ. L. Rep. 402, 511 So.2d 62, 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9770 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a lessor has an implicit contractual duty to deliver actual physical possession of the leased property to the lessee, which includes providing a means of access. A lessor's failure to provide such access constitutes a breach of the lease, giving the lessee a cause of action for the return of rent and potentially for damages.
Facts:
- Jerome Moore was granted a five-year surface lease from the Cameron Parish School Board for a section of its land for the purpose of hunting, trapping, and pasture.
- Moore paid the first year's annual rent of $6,250.00 to the Board.
- When Moore attempted to reach the leased section, he discovered it was landlocked, with no public access.
- The neighboring landowners refused to grant Moore ingress and egress across their property to reach the leased land.
- Moore demanded assistance from the Board to obtain access, but the Board declined, stating it had not advertised the lease as having public access.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerome Moore sued the Cameron Parish School Board (lessor) and neighboring landowners in a Louisiana trial court, seeking an injunction, access to the property, and the return of his rent.
- The trial court denied Moore's request for an injunction.
- Moore dismissed the neighboring landowners from the suit and amended his petition against the Board to add a claim for damages.
- The Board filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action, arguing it had no legal duty to provide access to the leased property.
- The trial court granted the Board's exception and dismissed Moore's entire lawsuit.
- Moore, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third 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 a lessee have a valid cause of action against a lessor for a refund of rent and damages when the lessor leases landlocked property to which it cannot provide physical access?
Opinions:
Majority - Knoll, J.
Yes. A lessee has a valid cause of action against a lessor for failure to provide access because a lessor is obligated by law to deliver actual possession of the leased property. The court's reasoning is based on Louisiana Civil Code Article 2692, which obligates the lessor to deliver the thing leased, maintain it for its intended use, and ensure the lessee's peaceable possession. Citing precedent like Hall v. Major, the court emphasized that this duty requires delivering actual possession, not merely legal title, unless the lease stipulates otherwise. Because the property was landlocked and inaccessible, the Board breached its primary obligation to place Moore in actual possession. Since possession is the core object of a lease, its failure entitles the lessee to seek a refund of rent and potentially damages.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle of Louisiana property and contract law: a lessor's duty to deliver possession is not symbolic but requires providing the lessee with actual, physical enjoyment of the premises. It clarifies that for landlocked parcels, providing a means of access is an essential component of delivering "actual possession." The ruling prevents lessors from leasing inaccessible property and then disclaiming responsibility, placing the burden on them to ensure the property is usable for its intended purpose. This precedent solidifies lessee protections against paying for property they cannot physically use.
