Ryan v. Monet
1995 WL 764521, 666 So. 2d 711 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A predial servitude established by title that grants a specific right of overhang, such as for a roof and cornice, does not implicitly extend to include other unenumerated encroachments like window air conditioning units. Any new or additional use that burdens the servient estate must be established independently by a new title or through acquisitive prescription.
Facts:
- Elizabeth H. Ryan and Alexandra Monet own adjacent properties with buildings constructed over a century ago.
- The foundation of Monet's building at 2708 Coliseum Street is situated on the boundary line it shares with Ryan's property at 2700 Coliseum Street.
- In 1958, a prior owner of Ryan's property executed a legal document creating a servitude of overhang for the benefit of Monet's property.
- The 1958 document explicitly limited the servitude to a one-foot overhang for the building's cornice and an eight-inch overhang for its roof.
- Monet later installed four window unit air conditioners in her building that protruded over the property line and into the airspace above Ryan's property.
- Evidence suggested that air conditioning units had been in place on Monet's building in some form since at least 1983.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth H. Ryan filed suit in a Louisiana trial court seeking an injunction to compel Alexandra Monet to remove four air conditioners that encroached on her property.
- The trial judge issued a preliminary injunction that required changes to a gutter spout but explicitly authorized Monet to maintain the four overhanging window unit air conditioners.
- Ryan, the plaintiff, appealed the portion of the trial court's preliminary injunction that permitted the air conditioners to remain.
- The case was heard by the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, with Ryan as the appellant and Monet as the appellee.
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 predial servitude created by title, which expressly permits a building's roof and cornice to overhang an adjacent property, also create an accessory right or future benefit that allows window air conditioning units to extend over that same property?
Opinions:
Majority - Plotkin, J.
No, a predial servitude created by title that expressly permits a building's roof and cornice to overhang an adjacent property does not create an accessory right or future benefit for window air conditioning units to also extend over that property. The court reasoned that servitudes must be interpreted strictly, with any doubt resolved in favor of the servient estate (Ryan's property). The 1958 title document was unambiguous and limited the overhang to the roof and cornice only. The air conditioners were not a 'future advantage' under La.C.C. art. 647, as the specific language of the title did not permit such an inference. They were also not an 'accessory right' under La.C.C. art. 743 because they are not necessary for the use of the roof and cornice overhang, and less inconvenient alternatives, such as central air conditioning, were available to Monet. Finally, no servitude was created by acquisitive prescription, as Monet lacked a 'just title' for the air conditioner overhang, thus requiring 30 years of uninterrupted possession. The evidence only established possession since 1983, falling short of the required period before the suit was filed in 1995.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of strict construction for servitudes in Louisiana property law, which dictates that any ambiguity or doubt regarding the existence or extent of a servitude is resolved in favor of the burdened (servient) estate. It clarifies that the concepts of 'accessory rights' or 'future benefits' cannot be used to unilaterally expand a specifically defined servitude to accommodate modern conveniences not contemplated in the original agreement. The ruling establishes that such an expansion constitutes a new burden on the servient estate and must independently meet the formal requirements for creating a servitude, such as a new title or the running of the full acquisitive prescription period.
