## Facts

- Texaco, Inc. held an 80-year lease on a tract of land on the Ivanhoe Canal in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, and built a marine base there to support offshore oil and gas operations.
- Vessels servicing the marine base traveled along the Ivanhoe Canal from the leased tract through an adjacent parcel known as the “Milling Tract,” then onward through connected waterways to the Gulf of Mexico.
- Texaco originally used the canal segment through the Milling Tract under a servitude of passage; after that servitude ended, Texaco acquired an undivided ownership interest in the Milling Tract and continued using the canal as a co-owner.
- The Milling Tract was owned in indivision by ten co-owners, including Ivanhoe Canal Corporation, Inc. (ICC) and Texaco, along with several individuals and other entities.
- ICC filed suit against the other co-owners seeking judicial partition of the Milling Tract.
- Texaco opposed the requested partition, arguing that partition (especially by public sale) would threaten or impair its continued canal access needed for the operation of its marine base.
- The trial court granted ICC relief and ordered partition of the Milling Tract, concluding the property should be partitioned by licitation (judicial sale) rather than divided in kind.
- Texaco appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a co-owner may compel partition of property held in indivision when another co-owner claims the property’s canal access is necessary to its commercial operations on a nearby leased tract.
2. Whether the Milling Tract was susceptible of partition in kind, or whether the court properly ordered partition by licitation because a physical division would be impracticable or would materially reduce value.
3. Whether Texaco’s prior passage rights, leasehold operations, or co-ownership status required the court to structure or deny partition to preserve Texaco’s preferred access arrangement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment ordering partition of the Milling Tract by licitation.
- ICC, as a co-owner, was entitled to demand partition and could not be forced to remain in indivision.
- The court agreed that the Milling Tract was not reasonably susceptible of an equitable partition in kind under the circumstances, making a judicial sale an appropriate method of partition.
- Texaco’s business dependence on canal passage did not bar partition or require the court to maintain Texaco’s access arrangement as a condition of partition.

## Legal Principles

- Any co-owner generally may demand partition of property held in indivision; continued indivision cannot be imposed merely because it benefits another co-owner’s operations.
- Partition in kind is favored when the property can be divided conveniently and fairly without material loss of value; when it cannot, the court may order partition by licitation (sale with proceeds divided among co-owners).
- A co-owner’s special economic use of the property, even if substantial, does not defeat another co-owner’s right to partition; such concerns may affect valuation and practical consequences, not the existence of the right.
- Co-ownership of the tract through which access is obtained does not, without a legally established servitude or similar right, guarantee that access will continue in the same form after partition proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court upheld ICC’s right as a co-owner to end indivision of the Milling Tract and agreed that a judicial sale was warranted because an in-kind division was not a workable or fair solution. Texaco’s reliance on canal access to serve its marine base did not prevent partition or require the court to preserve Texaco’s preferred operating arrangement as part of the partition judgment.


Ivanhoe Canal Corp. v. Bunn, 694 So. 2d 263 (1995)