## Facts

- Larry W. and Nelda Rebecca McDonald owned an irregular tract in Livingston Parish with frontage and access on Henderson Road (a public road) on the east and adjoining property owned by Vardie L. and Sheila Rancher on the west.
- The Ranchers planned a residential subdivision and proposed building an access road along the common boundary so that it would serve both the subdivision and neighboring properties; they asked adjacent owners, including the McDonalds, to share in the construction cost.
- The McDonalds refused to contribute. The Ranchers then constructed the road approximately one foot inside their own property line, leaving a one-foot “buffer” strip between the road and the McDonalds’ boundary so the McDonalds could not directly access the roadway from their land.
- The Ranchers dedicated the road, “Rancher Drive,” to public use and were required to build it to parish standards, increasing the cost of construction.
- In 1997, the McDonalds donated two interior parcels to their children: one to their daughter and son-in-law, Donald Joseph Sceroler, Jr. and Pasha McDonald Sceroler, and another to their son, Larry Benard McDonald.
- After the donations, both donated parcels lay behind the remaining McDonald property on one side and the Ranchers’ one-foot strip along Rancher Drive on the other, leaving the donated parcels without direct access to Rancher Drive.
- The Scerolers and Larry McDonald attempted to negotiate the purchase of the one-foot strip from the Ranchers to obtain direct access to Rancher Drive. Negotiations continued through correspondence and draft documents, but the parties did not reach final agreement, including because the Ranchers demanded subdivision-type restrictions affecting the plaintiffs’ property and the plaintiffs did not accept those terms.
- The Scerolers sued the Ranchers seeking a right of passage to Rancher Drive as the nearest public road. Larry McDonald separately sued for specific performance, claiming the negotiation documents formed an enforceable compromise/contract for the strip. The suits were consolidated.
- The trial court ruled for the Ranchers, finding no right to a predial servitude across the Ranchers’ land and no enforceable compromise. The plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether owners of enclosed parcels created by their donors’ voluntary donations may demand a right of passage to the nearest public road over a neighbor’s property under La. Civ. Code art. 689, or are limited to a gratuitous passage over the donor’s remaining land under La. Civ. Code art. 694.
2. Whether the parties’ correspondence and draft instruments concerning the one-foot strip created an enforceable compromise/immovable sale agreement that could be specifically enforced.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the Ranchers.
- The plaintiffs were not entitled to a right of passage across the Ranchers’ property under La. Civ. Code art. 689 to reach Rancher Drive.
- Because the enclosure resulted from the McDonalds’ voluntary act (donations of interior parcels), La. Civ. Code art. 694 governed, limiting the plaintiffs to a gratuitous passage over the donor’s remaining property to the existing public-road access at Henderson Road.
- The court also affirmed the finding that no enforceable compromise/contract for sale of the one-foot strip existed because the writings reflected ongoing negotiations and did not show agreement on all material terms, including the proposed restrictions.
- Costs were assessed to the plaintiffs.

## Legal Principles

- La. Civ. Code art. 689 generally provides a right of passage for an estate that has no access to a public road, typically over neighboring property to the nearest public road, with compensation as provided by law.
- La. Civ. Code art. 694 applies when the lack of access is caused by the owner’s own act, including partition or voluntary alienation such as a donation; in that situation, the enclosed estate’s remedy is a gratuitous passage over the land of the person whose act created the enclosure (the grantor/donor), not a compelled servitude over a third party’s land.
- When art. 694 applies and a passage over the donor’s retained land provides access to a public road, the donee cannot bypass that remedy and demand a shorter or more convenient route across a neighbor’s property under art. 689.
- A compromise and a contract to transfer an immovable require clear mutual consent and must satisfy writing requirements; letters and drafts that show unresolved terms and continued bargaining do not establish a binding agreement.
- Specific performance is unavailable where the claimant cannot prove a completed, enforceable agreement on all material terms.

## Conclusion

Because the McDonalds’ donations created the enclosed condition of the plaintiffs’ parcels, the court held that La. Civ. Code art. 694 controlled and entitled the plaintiffs only to a gratuitous passage over the donors’ remaining land to Henderson Road, not a servitude across the Ranchers’ one-foot strip to Rancher Drive; the court also upheld denial of specific performance because the negotiation writings did not form an enforceable compromise or sale of the strip.


Sceroler v. Rancher, 808 So.2d 803 (2002)