## Facts

- Santa Scurto LeBlanc (plaintiff) and her brother, Sam Scurto (defendant), each owned an undivided one-third interest in improved commercial property.
- A third Scurto relative owned the remaining undivided one-third interest.
- The property contained store buildings and an alley running behind the stores.
- The alley served as a passageway for the co-owners in connection with the commercial premises.
- The alley extended beyond the co-owned tract to adjoining property owned by LeBlanc’s husband, and the husband’s tenant also used the alley for passage.
- After ill will developed between LeBlanc and Scurto, Scurto parked his automobile at the end of the alley in a manner that blocked LeBlanc’s access.
- LeBlanc sued for an injunction to prevent Scurto from blocking the alley and from interfering with her right to use it.
- The district court granted injunctive relief, and Scurto appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a co-owner of immovable property may use the common property by blocking a shared alley in a way that prevents or materially interferes with another co-owner’s co-equal right of passage and use.
2. Whether injunctive relief is available between co-owners to stop continuing obstruction of a commonly used alley serving the co-owned commercial premises.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court upheld the injunction restraining Scurto from blocking the alley and from interfering with LeBlanc’s use of the passageway.

## Legal Principles

- A co-owner may use the entire thing held in indivision, but that use must be consistent with the rights of the other co-owners and must not exclude them from similar use.
- Conduct by one co-owner that effectively bars another co-owner’s access to a common area (such as a passageway used for the property’s commercial function) exceeds permissible co-owner use.
- Injunctive relief may be granted between co-owners to stop ongoing or threatened interference with a co-owner’s right to use and enjoy the common property, particularly where the interference is repeated and continuing.

## Conclusion

Because each co-owner had an equal right to use the alley serving the co-owned commercial property, Sam Scurto could not block the passageway with his automobile to prevent Santa Scurto LeBlanc’s access. The appellate court therefore affirmed the permanent injunction prohibiting obstruction of the alley and interference with LeBlanc’s right of use.


LeBlanc v. Scurto, 173 So. 2d 322 (1965)