Preview:

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 95-C-2571 ST. CHARLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD V. P & L INVESTMENT CORPORATION

ON WRIT OF REVIEW TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT PARISH OF ST. CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA MARCUS, Justice The issue in this case is whether a private road is subject to public use. P & L Investment Corporation (P & L) owned 45 acres of land abutting Highway 90 in St. Charles Parish. In November 1972, the

St. Charles Parish School Board (School Board) purchased 35 of the 45 acres for construction of a new high school leaving P & L with a small parcel of land fronting Highway 90, a 50 foot wide strip of land along the western boundary of the School Board's property, and a small parcel of land in back of the School Board's property. The

50 foot wide strip of land was approximately 1,700 feet long and connected P & L's two small parcels. The School Board began

construction of the new Hahnville High School on its thirty-five acres. Two public streets, First Street and Second Street,

provided access to the School Board's property from Highway 90. The builders of the high school used Second Street to reach the School Board's property during construction. In March 1973, the St. Charles Parish Police Jury (Police Jury) exchanged Second Street, a dedicated roadway, for a

comparable strip of land which abutted Highway 90 and was owned by P & L. The strip of land connected Highway 90 to the 50 foot wide

strip of land owned by P & L along the western boundary of the School Board's property. The strip of land the Police Jury

received in the exchange became a dedicated roadway known as Tiger

Drive.

When the Police Jury built and paved Tiger Drive with

asphalt, the Police Jury also paved at least 200 feet of the strip of land still owned by P & L. P & L did not protest the paving by

the Police Jury of this portion of its fifty foot wide strip of land. The parish then placed shells on a further 500 feet of the

strip of land owned by P & L and placed shells in the parking area of Hahnville High School, which was on School Board property. The

School Board refers to the dedicated roadway and the continuation of the road on P & L's property as Tiger Drive. After school

officials installed a gate across Tiger Drive at the property line where P & L's strip of land began, P & L asked the School Board not to lock the gate because P & L wanted access to its property in the back. In 1977, the Police Jury or the School Board paved an

additional 500 feet of P & L's property with concrete when the parking lot for Hahnville High School was paved. The shells, which

had covered the road and the parking lot prior to the paving, were relocated from the parking lot and Tiger Drive to a portion of the fifty foot wide strip which remained unpaved. The concrete paving

and placement of the shells on the fifty foot strip were done with the consent of P & L. Thus, 700 feet of P & L's 50 foot wide strip

were partially paved with either asphalt or concrete and the remaining 1000 feet were partially covered with shells. Although P & L intended to dedicate its portion of Tiger Drive, it never formally dedicated the strip of land to the public or sold the strip to the School Board. School officials were aware

that the strip of land along the western boundary of the campus was not school property, but thought that the School Board had an agreement with P & L that the school would have access to its parking lot from Tiger Drive. From 1975 to the early 1980s, St.

Charles Parish maintained the asphalt portion of Tiger Drive including the section owned by P & L. The School Board performed

maintenance on the concrete and shell portions of Tiger Drive. 2

In 1990, P & L1 claimed ownership of 1,700 feet of Tiger Drive in a letter to the St. Charles Parish School Board. In the letter,

P & L demanded that the School Board cease using the portion of Tiger Drive owned by P & L and informed the School Board that it planned to run sewer and water lines down the middle of Tiger Drive. The School Board then filed suit seeking a declaration that

Tiger Drive was a public street and an injunction to prevent P & L from interfering with the public's use of Tiger Drive. The School

Board contended that P & L's portion of Tiger Drive had been dedicated to public use.2 After a trial on the merits, the trial

judge declared Tiger Drive to be the property of P & L and denied the School Board's petition for an injunction. The court of appeal

affirmed finding that P & L had not dedicated its portion of Tiger Drive.3 Upon the School Board's application, we granted certiorari

to review the correctness of that decision.4 The issue presented for our review is whether the portion of Tiger Drive owned by P & L is subject to public use. A road may be either public or private. 457. La. Civ. Code art. Id. The

A public road is one that is subject to public use.

public may own the land on which the road is built or may only have the right to use it (a servitude of passage). Id. When a private

person owns the land on which a public road is built and the public merely has the right to use it, the land is a private thing subject to public use. A.N. YIANNOPOULOS, PROPERTY

Download 95-C-2571.pdf

Louisiana Law