Background
Regions Bank manages a 540-acre tract of land (the Antrim 540) belonging to the Antrim Trust, located in Bossier Parish immediately north of property owned by the defendants (the Walker-Ewing tract). Since at least the 1960s, timber has been harvested from the Antrim 540 and transported to Highway 160 via a verbally granted right of passage through the western side of the defendants’ property, known as the “Western Route.” Hunting lessees also used this route seasonally to access their leases on the Antrim 540.
In December 2022, after contractors hired by Regions used an alternate route across the defendants’ property because the Western Route had become impassable, the defendants changed the locks on the gate providing access from Highway 160 and blocked both possible routes by placing T-bars into the ground at the northern boundary of their tract. Regions then sued for a formal, recorded right of passage. The trial court granted a servitude along the Western Route, and the defendants appealed, arguing the Northern Route via the Coile Road would be shorter and less injurious.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of an easement along the Western Route. The court held that the Antrim 540 constituted an involuntarily enclosed estate entitled to access to the nearest public road under Louisiana Civil Code Article 689. The nearest public road was Highway 160, not the Coile Road as defendants argued, because the portion of the Coile Road beyond the locked gate and “Parish Maintenance Ends Here” sign was not maintained by the parish and was inaccessible to the public, making it private property rather than a public road under La. C.C. art. 457.
The court found the Western Route satisfied the statutory requirement under La. C.C. art. 692 to use the shortest and least injurious route available. Although the defendants proposed a Northern Route that would theoretically be shorter, that route would require costly new road construction across properties owned by third parties (Ardis & Co. and Weyerhaeuser Forest Holdings). By contrast, the Western Route had been used for at least 100 years to harvest timber from the Antrim 540, traversed only 727 feet of the defendants’ property (compared to 1,462 feet for the Eastern Route), and required only minimal site work to make it passable again.
The court rejected defendants’ objections that the Western Route was unsuitable due to seasonal impassability during winter months, holding that the right of passage need only provide access suitable for the kind of traffic reasonably necessary for the property’s use—timber harvesting and seasonal hunting leases—not year-round all-weather access.
Key Takeaways
- Owners of involuntarily landlocked properties may obtain a court-ordered right of passage across neighboring land to reach the nearest public road under Louisiana law.
- In determining the proper location for an access servitude, courts weigh distance, degree of injury to the burdened property, practicability, cost, and historical use—the burden falls on the owner of the enclosed estate to show why a proposed route is appropriate, not on neighbors to identify alternatives.
- A road is “public” only if it is both open to vehicular traffic by the general public and maintained by the public; a locked gate and posted maintenance-ends sign rebut any presumption of public status for the portion beyond them.
- Historical, longstanding use of a particular route (over 100 years in this case) is relevant to suitability and may support a lower burden on the servient estate in terms of maintenance and repair obligations.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on how Louisiana courts apply the access-by-necessity doctrine when property is landlocked and prior informal arrangements break down. The court clarified that the “shortest and least injurious” route under Article 692 is not determined solely by distance; practical factors such as whether alternative routes require new construction on third-party land, the cost of repairs, and a route’s historical viability all factor into the analysis. The decision also established that property owners seeking to block access cannot simply mark a road as private or allow it to fall into disrepair—a road’s public character depends on objective factors like parish maintenance and public accessibility.
For landowners, the decision underscores that verbal permissions granted by predecessors may be formalized into binding recorded servitudes if the land becomes effectively landlocked, and that attempts to revoke longstanding access rights through gate locks and physical obstructions are unlikely to succeed when the court finds the route is the least injurious available alternative. The ruling also confirms that access servitudes can extend beyond the immediate needs of the dominant estate (here, including hunting lessees, not just timber operations) when those uses were known and contemplated at trial.