Facts
- Arlen B. Cenac, Jr. bought Golden Ranch Plantation in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, including a portion of Company Canal (a man-made canal connecting Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Des Allemands) and an adjacent boat launch and parking area.
- For many years before the sale, members of the public used the canal and boat launch for commercial and recreational access to surrounding waters.
- Prior owners consistently asserted private control: posting “private”/“no trespassing” signs, restricting certain uses (including vessel types), refusing public maintenance funding, and granting selective permission to particular users.
- After the purchase, Cenac attempted to fence the boat launch and parking area; members of a local association and individuals allegedly entered the property and prevented construction.
- Cenac sought to further restrict access by applying for a permit to install a gated structure across Company Canal.
- Cenac sued for a permanent injunction and damages for trespass and interference with his property rights.
- A local resident sued in a consolidated action claiming a real right (servitude) to cross the property, park, and use the boat launch to access the canal.
Issues
- Whether long-term public use of a privately owned boat launch and a privately owned, navigable canal established an implied dedication to public use creating a public servitude of use.
- Whether permissive public use, coupled with continuing owner control and assertions of private ownership, can satisfy the intent element required for implied dedication under Louisiana law.
Decision
- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal.
- The Court held the evidence showed only long-term public use with the owners’ permission, not an intent to permanently devote the property to public use.
- The Court concluded there was no implied dedication and thus no public servitude burdening either the boat launch/parking area or Company Canal.
- The permanent injunction in favor of Cenac barring use of the boat launch and parking area remained in effect, and the canal was not subject to a public servitude by implied dedication.
Legal Principles
- Implied dedication requires clear and convincing evidence that the landowner intended to permanently devote the property to public use.
- Long-term, open, and continuous public use does not alone establish implied dedication when the use is permissive.
- Owner conduct inconsistent with surrender of rights—such as posting private-property signage, limiting uses, refusing public maintenance funding, and granting selective permissions—negates an inference of intent to dedicate.
- Navigability of a privately constructed and privately owned canal is relevant but does not by itself create a public servitude; dedication turns on proof of owner intent.
Conclusion
The Court held that extensive public use of a private boat launch and a privately owned navigable canal, where owners maintained control and allowed access only by permission, did not establish implied dedication or a public servitude of use.