## Facts

- Willie Hymel originally owned a tract of land that he later divided into two parcels: a front parcel and a rear parcel.
- Hymel sold the front parcel to the St. John the Baptist Parish School Board (the School Board) and, in the act of sale, reserved a predial servitude of passage benefiting the rear parcel.
- The servitude was expressly described as “a right of way 25 feet in width” along the westerly line of the property conveyed to the School Board, intended to provide ingress and egress to the rear parcel.
- Hymel retained ownership of the rear parcel, which was used in connection with sugar cane farming, and the rear parcel later passed to his heir, Lynn Hymel (plaintiff).
- After acquiring the front parcel, the School Board built and operated a public school on its property.
- Over time, the School Board’s improvements and uses encroached on or interfered with the 25-foot right-of-way, including:
  - A chain-link fence placed across the entrance to the right-of-way.
  - Regular parking of school vehicles on the front portion of the right-of-way.
  - Drainage-related structures within the right-of-way, including drop inlets connected to underground piping and a drainage ditch located within the servitude area.
  - A building roof overhang projecting into the right-of-way by about 1.7 feet at one end and up to about 2.9 feet at the other, for roughly 70 feet, at about 9.5 feet above ground.
- Hymel filed suit seeking injunctive relief to stop the School Board from interfering with the servitude and to require removal of the interferences.
- The trial court ordered the School Board to remove certain obstacles but refused to order removal of the roof overhang, finding it was not a sufficient interference to justify that remedy; the trial court also ordered each party to bear its own costs.
- Hymel appealed, seeking removal of the overhang and a different assessment of costs.

## Issues

1. Whether a roof overhang extending up to approximately 2.9 feet into a 25-foot servitude of passage, at about 9.5 feet above ground, constituted a substantial interference requiring a mandatory injunction for removal.
2. Whether the School Board’s fence, parking practices, and drainage installations within the servitude unlawfully interfered with the dominant estate’s right of ingress and egress.
3. Whether the trial court erred in allocating costs by requiring each party to pay its own costs despite the plaintiff obtaining significant injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to order removal of the roof overhang, concluding that on the record the intrusion and clearance did not substantially impair use of the right-of-way.
- The appellate court left in place injunctive relief directed at other interferences (including measures addressing obstructions such as the fence and other conditions that hindered passage).
- The appellate court amended the judgment on costs, reallocating costs against the School Board in light of the plaintiff’s substantial success on the main interference claims.
- Judgment was affirmed as amended.

## Legal Principles

- A predial servitude of passage created by title must be respected by the servient estate; the servient owner may not maintain conditions that unreasonably prevent or hinder the dominant estate’s use for ingress and egress.
- Not every encroachment within the described width of a right-of-way warrants a mandatory injunction; the remedy depends on whether the condition materially and practically interferes with the exercise of the servitude under the facts proven.
- Trial and appellate courts may evaluate the character, extent, and practical effect of an encroachment (including clearance and remaining usable width) when deciding whether removal of a structure is required.
- When a plaintiff obtains substantial relief establishing and protecting servitude rights, it is generally equitable to assess litigation costs against the party whose interference made the suit necessary.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the 25-foot servitude by granting injunctive relief against obstructions that hindered ingress and egress, but it declined to require removal of a school building roof overhang because, given its limited projection and high clearance, it did not substantially impair use of the right-of-way on the facts shown; the court also amended the judgment to shift costs against the School Board.


Hymel v. St. John the Baptist Parish School Board, 303 So.2d 588 (1974)