## Facts

- Mr. and Mrs. Bolton owned land burdened by a pipeline corridor.
- The Boltons granted Continental Oil Company a written right-of-way agreement for construction and operation of a pipeline across their property.
- The agreement was for a fixed 30-year period and, by its terms, ended after Mr. Bolton’s death.
- Continental’s interest was later acquired by Sasol North America, Inc. (Sasol).
- After the original agreement expired, Sasol contacted Mrs. Bolton seeking a new or extended right-of-way for continued pipeline use.
- Sasol and Mrs. Bolton discussed renewal terms but did not execute a written renewal agreement.
- Sasol claimed Mrs. Bolton orally offered to extend the right-of-way for an additional 30 years in exchange for $50,000, and that Sasol accepted.
- Mrs. Bolton denied making an enforceable renewal offer and maintained she rejected Sasol’s proposal.
- Mrs. Bolton moved for summary judgment, arguing the right-of-way was an immovable real right under Louisiana law and that any transfer or creation of such a right must be in writing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mrs. Bolton, and Sasol appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a pipeline right-of-way is a real right in an immovable (commonly treated as a predial servitude) subject to Louisiana’s writing requirement.
2. Whether an alleged oral agreement can validly extend or renew an expired pipeline right-of-way across immovable property.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper when no written instrument existed to evidence any renewal or new grant.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Bolton.
- The court treated the pipeline right-of-way as a predial servitude, which is a real right in an immovable under Louisiana law.
- Because the original written right-of-way expired, any continued burden on the land for an additional term would require a valid new grant or extension.
- Louisiana law requires that transfers of immovables, and the creation or transfer of real rights in immovables (including conventional predial servitudes), be made in writing.
- Even assuming Sasol’s version of events (an oral offer and acceptance), the absence of a written act meant Sasol could not establish an enforceable extension as a matter of law.
- With the writing requirement unmet, there was no genuine issue of material fact that could change the outcome, so summary judgment was appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- A pipeline right-of-way granted by agreement is commonly analyzed in Louisiana as a conventional predial servitude, a real right in an immovable.
- The creation, transfer, or extension of a real right in an immovable generally must be in writing to be valid and enforceable.
- When a fixed-term servitude expires, continued use under a new term requires a new written grant or written extension; an oral agreement is insufficient.
- Summary judgment is proper when the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential legal element (here, a written instrument) even if the parties dispute what was said during negotiations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment for the landowners because the pipeline right-of-way was a real right in immovable property and, once the original written agreement expired, any extension required a written instrument; Sasol’s claim based on an alleged oral renewal failed as a matter of law.


Sasol North America, Inc. v. Bolton, 103 So. 3d 1267 (2012)