## Facts

- Dr. F. E. Palomeque owned a second-floor condominium unit at 422 Chartres Street in New Orleans; chef Paul Prudhomme owned the adjoining one-story property at 420 Chartres Street used for K-Paul’s Restaurant operations.
- The two buildings shared a common wall. On the second-floor level of Palomeque’s building, there were windows in that common wall providing light and a view over Prudhomme’s property.
- The condominium building (422 Chartres) was acquired and converted to condominiums in 1974. The trial court found the common-wall windows were installed as part of that conversion, not long-standing openings from the original construction.
- Prudhomme purchased 420 Chartres in 1981. He later sought approvals to build a second-story addition on his property.
- The planned addition would require closing (bricking over) Palomeque’s windows in the common wall.
- Palomeque filed suit seeking injunctive relief to stop Prudhomme from blocking the windows, claiming a predial servitude of light and view in his favor, allegedly acquired by acquisitive prescription.
- The trial court initially issued a preliminary injunction but, after trial on the merits, denied a permanent injunction and concluded servitudes of light and view could not be acquired by acquisitive prescription. The court of appeal affirmed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether servitudes of light and view (servitude of view) may be acquired by acquisitive prescription under Louisiana law.
2. If acquisitive prescription were available, whether Palomeque proved a prescriptive servitude based on the existence and use of the common-wall windows.
3. Whether a servitude of light and view existed by another mode of creation, such as title or destination of the owner.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal and the trial court’s judgment denying a permanent injunction.
- The court held that servitudes of light and view are non-apparent predial servitudes and, under the Civil Code, non-apparent servitudes cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription.
- The court further concluded that Palomeque failed to prove any other valid basis for a servitude (such as an express title or destination of the owner).
- Because no servitude burdened Prudhomme’s property, Prudhomme was not legally prohibited from constructing the addition even though it would block the windows.

## Legal Principles

- A servitude of view is a predial servitude that, when validly established, allows the dominant estate to prevent constructions on the servient estate that would obstruct the view.
- Louisiana law distinguishes apparent servitudes (shown by exterior works) from non-apparent servitudes (without exterior signs); only apparent servitudes may be acquired by acquisitive prescription.
- Servitudes of light and view are treated as non-apparent because windows in a wall do not, by themselves, constitute an exterior work on the neighbor’s estate signaling a servitude burdening that estate.
- Predial servitudes must be created through recognized modes such as an express grant by title or, where applicable, destination of the owner; courts will not infer a servitude simply from a building’s configuration or a neighbor’s tolerance of windows.

## Conclusion

Palomeque sought to stop Prudhomme from bricking over second-floor windows in a shared wall by claiming a servitude of light and view acquired through prescription, but the Louisiana Supreme Court held such servitudes are non-apparent and therefore cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription, and it found no servitude created by title or destination of the owner; accordingly, the denial of a permanent injunction was affirmed.


Palomeque v. Prudhomme, 664 So.2d 88 (1995)