## Facts

- Elizabeth Ryan owned a house on one New Orleans lot, and Alexandra Monett owned the adjoining house; both homes were more than a century old.
- Monett’s house was built along the boundary between the two properties, with the foundation located on the property line separating the estates.
- In 1958, a predecessor in Ryan’s chain of title signed a written document that purported to grant the owner of Monett’s property a servitude allowing Monett’s cornice and roof to overhang across the mutual property line.
- After acquiring her property, Monett converted her house into rental units.
- Monett installed window air-conditioning units in four windows on the side of her property facing Ryan’s property.
- The A/C units extended past the property line into the airspace above Ryan’s land.
- Ryan sued Monett seeking injunctive relief compelling removal of the encroaching A/C units.
- The trial court denied the requested injunction and held that Monett’s property had acquired a servitude allowing installation of the air-conditioning units.
- Ryan appealed from the judgment denying injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1958 written servitude granting an overhang for Monett’s “cornice and roof” authorized later-installed window air-conditioning units that projected over the boundary into Ryan’s airspace.
2. Whether Monett’s property otherwise had a servitude permitting the A/C encroachment based on acquisition separate from the 1958 writing.
3. If no servitude covered the A/C units, whether Ryan was entitled to an injunction requiring their removal.

## Decision

- The appellate court rejected treating the 1958 document as authorization for the later window A/C projections.
- The court construed the servitude as limited to the particular overhang described in the writing (the cornice and roof), rather than expanded to new projections added later.
- The court found the record did not support recognizing a separate servitude that would legalize the air-conditioning encroachments.
- Because the A/C units were not justified by a valid servitude, the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief could not stand on the theory that Monett had a servitude for the units.

## Legal Principles

- Predial servitudes are interpreted according to their title, and the burden on the servient estate is not extended beyond what the title provides.
- A servitude that authorizes a specific building overhang (such as a roof or cornice) does not, without clear language or a separate legal basis, permit additional later-installed structures that project over the boundary.
- A claim that a new encroachment is permitted by a servitude requires proof of a valid servitude covering that type of use; courts do not treat the existence of one permitted overhang as a blanket right to project other items into a neighbor’s airspace.
- When a projection crosses the property line and no servitude authorizes it, injunctive relief may be an available remedy to require removal.

## Conclusion

In *Ryan v. Monett*, the court treated the 1958 writing as a narrow grant allowing only the cornice-and-roof overhang described in the document, not later window air-conditioning units that extended over Ryan’s property, and it rejected the trial court’s view that Monett had acquired a servitude broad enough to legalize those A/C encroachments, leaving Ryan entitled to relief based on the absence of a valid servitude.


Ryan v. Monett, 666 So.2d 711 (1995)