Opinion

Three Rivers Commons Condominium Ass'n v. Grodner

  • 2016 La.App. 1 Cir. 0067
  • 220 So. 3d 776
  • 2017 La. App. LEXIS 812
  • 2017 WL 1959462
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
May 10, 2017
Status
Published
Author
Calloway
On the bench
Calloway, Crain, Holdridge, McClendon, Welch
Cited by
2 cases

The opinion

CALLOWAY, J., 1

agreeing in part and dissenting in part.

Iil agree the trial court correctly overruled the peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action. I agree with the trial court that the Board of the incorporated owner’s association for Three Rivers Commons is the proper party to seek relief in this matter.

As to the competing requests for injunc-tive relief, which raise the issues of whether any servitude exists on the island in favor of the TRI owners, and whether the welded-shut gate obstructs such a servitude, I disagree with reversing and dissolving the injunction that prevents the TRI owners from attempting to open the welded-shut gate. I do not find that the TRI owners proved the existence of an “all-purpose” predial servitude of access or passage in favor of the properties on the island. Based on my review of the record, there is only one servitude — a fifty-foot utility servitude, which does not allow the TRI owners access to this property for “all purposes.” I believe the TRI owners should be prevented from attempting to open the welded-shut gate on the basis of an “all-purpose” servitude. Thus, I disagree with the per curiam opinion to the extent it recognizes the all-purpose servitude and partially reverses the trial court’s judgment dissolving the prohibitory injunction.

|2I agree with affirming the denial of the request for a mandatory injunction ordering the opening of the welded-shut gate. I do note, however, that any structure preventing access to the fifty-foot utility servitude — such as a welded-shut gate — interferes with the purpose for which the utility *785 servitude was granted and, in my opinion, is prohibited by the language of the servitude. However, the TRI owners are not entitled to access or passage through the property based on the premise that an “all-purpose” predial servitude exists in their favor. Therefore, I agree with the per curiam opinion to the extent it affirms the trial court’s judgment denying the mandatory injunction and rendering judgment ordering Three Rivers Commons to remove or modify the welded-shut gate to allow access and passage in favor of the TRI owners.

For these reasons, I respectfully agree in part and dissent in part from the per curiam opinion.

. Hon. Curtis A. Calloway, retired, is serving as judge ad hoc by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.