Rockholt v. Keaty
256 La. 629, 237 So.2d 663, 1970 La. LEXIS 3523 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property that abuts a controlled-access public highway is considered legally "enclosed" for the purposes of claiming a right of passage. However, this right of passage must be sought to the nearest public road and not to another non-contiguous parcel owned by the landowner.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs originally owned a single 35.521-acre tract of land.
- The State of Louisiana expropriated a 300-foot strip of land through the middle of the plaintiffs' tract to construct Interstate 12.
- This action divided the plaintiffs' property into two separate parcels, a southern portion and a northern portion.
- The northern parcel became surrounded by land owned by the defendant Thomas S. Keaty, various subdivisions, and the new Interstate 12.
- Interstate 12 is a controlled-access highway, and the plaintiffs were denied any ingress or egress between their northern parcel and the highway, effectively landlocking it.
- The plaintiffs sought a right of passage across Keaty's land to connect their landlocked northern parcel with their southern parcel, which was not the nearest route to a public road.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs sued defendant Thomas S. Keaty in the district court for East Baton Rouge Parish, seeking a right of passage.
- The defendant filed an exception of no cause of action and a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court (trial court) sustained the defendant's motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the district court.
- The plaintiffs subsequently sought and were granted review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 whose property becomes enclosed by the state's construction of a non-access highway have a right under Louisiana Civil Code Article 699 to claim passage over a neighbor's property to reach another of their own parcels, rather than to the nearest public road?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barham
No. A property becomes legally enclosed when the state builds an adjacent non-access highway, but the landowner's right of passage is limited to the nearest public road. The court first held that the plaintiffs' property was indeed "enclosed" within the meaning of Civil Code Article 699. It distinguished prior precedent by noting the enclosure resulted not from the plaintiffs' own actions, but from the state's superior power of expropriation. The court reasoned that public policy disfavors removing valuable land from commerce, and therefore receiving compensation in the expropriation suit does not bar a landowner from seeking a right of passage. However, the court denied the specific relief sought by the plaintiffs. Under Civil Code Articles 699 and 700, the right of passage must be to "the nearest public road." The plaintiffs did not seek passage to a public road, but rather to another parcel of their own land. Because the record showed shorter, more direct routes to public roads existed across the properties of other neighbors, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the passage they sought from this particular defendant.
Analysis:
This decision modernizes the interpretation of "enclosed" estates under Louisiana's Civil Code, adapting the 19th-century concept to the 20th-century reality of controlled-access highways. It establishes that an enclosure created by government expropriation for a non-access road triggers the right of passage, affirming the public policy of keeping land in commerce. At the same time, the case reinforces the strict statutory requirements for the remedy, clarifying that the servitude must be to the nearest public road and cannot be used simply to connect a landowner's non-contiguous parcels. This holding balances the needs of the enclosed landowner against the property rights of their neighbors by narrowly tailoring the available relief.
