Could Union Parish revoke a public road dedication once the road was no longer needed?

Plain-English summary

Union Parish asked whether it could revoke dedication of a public road it considered unnecessary, and what that would mean for adjacent landowners. The AG said La. R. S. 48:701 permitted revocation of roads abandoned and no longer needed for public use. The local authority held discretion to decide that need but could not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The opinion discussed reversion of title to contiguous owners if the public authority owned the roadbed. It did not decide the requested private access scenarios, describing them as factual questions for courts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could the police jury revoke an unneeded road dedication?
The AG said yes for a road abandoned and no longer needed for public use, subject to the local authority’s discretion being exercised without arbitrariness or caprice.

Did the AG decide whether the landowners would retain passage rights?
No. It discussed Civil Code passage principles but declined to resolve the particular private rights and hypothetical scenarios.

What if the public authority owned the roadbed?
The opinion said title would revert or fall to the present owners contiguous to the roadbed.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion discussed tacit dedication from public maintenance under LSA R.S. 48:491B(1)(a), revocation under La. R. S. 48:701, and Civil Code Article 705 on passage. It declined to decide fact-sensitive rights of particular landowners.

Citations and references

• The legal authorities cited appear in the original text below.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/02-0091

Original opinion text

~....~t~t~ of ~~Zo~i~ian~
One AmencaI~ l~lace
301 Mare Street Suite 600
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P O Box ~)4005
CIVIL DIVISION
TEL (225) 342-7013
FAX (225) 342°2090
BATON ROUGE
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

MAY 0 9 Z00Z
OPINION NO. 02-0091

90-POLICE JURIES-Powers and Functions
50- HIGHWAYS
Mr. S. Andrew Shealy
LSA-R.S. 48:491B(1)(a)
La. R.S. 48:701
Assistant District Attorney
A police jury may revoke dedications of existing public roads and such
Union Parish Courthouse
revocation is discretionary so long as it its not arbitrary or capricious.
The effect of that revocation on the title of the road bed is that the bed is
Farmerville, Louisiana 71241
equally divided between the contiguous owners, however the use of the
road bed after revocation is fact sensitive and can not be answered here.

Dear Mr. Shealy:

This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion for the Union Parish Police Jury in the following cases.

Is it proper for the police jury to revoke the dedication of an existing public road where they believe it is no longer needed for a "public purpose"?

2. What happens to the existing public road when dedication is properly revoked?

3. What are the rights of landowners in scenarios 4 & 5 where dedication of existing public road is revoked?

First, LSA R.S. 48:491B(1)(a) declares all roads to be public if maintained by the public body with tacit permission of the owner for at least three years. The courts have held that maintenance of a road by a police jury for three continuous years gives rise to a ’tacit dedication’ thereof to public use by its owner. Frierson v.
Police Jury of Caddo Parish, 160 La. 957, 107 So. 709 (1926).

The courts have consistently applied this statute to roads maintained by a public authority, even when no real public purpose is served thereby, as when only one person or family utilizes the road as a driveway to his property. Curtis v.
Goebel, 101 So.2d 462 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1958). The same has been held true when the police jury itself refuses to recognize the road as public. Latour v.
Dupuis, 164 So.2d 620 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1964).

Page 2

Mr. S. Andrew Shealy
Opinion No. 02-0091
Page 2

With regard to your first question: Regardless of the type of dedication, a parish or municipal governing authority may revoke the dedication of all streets, roads and alleyways that have been abandoned and are no longer needed for public use. La. R. S. 48:701.

The real question raised under these circumstances is: "When is a public thoroughfare no longer needed by the public?" This decision is generally left to the discretion of the local public authority but that body cannot act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in deciding a road to be abandoned. Jeffries v. Police Jury of Rapides Parish, 53 So.2d 157 (La.App.2nd Cir. 1951).

As such, the decision of a municipal governing authority to revoke the dedication of roads and streets which are abandoned or no longer needed for public purposes is a discretionary act under La. R.S. 48:701.

As to that portion of your request, regarding the propriety of that decision based upon hypothetical scenarios, it is the policy of this office not to issue opinions as to the exercise of discretion. This policy is in accord with the decisions of Louisiana Courts, which basically hold that local governing authorities may not be prevented from exercising its discretion to abandon roads or streets; unless they do so arbitrarily or capriciously. See Attorney General’s Opinion Number 02- 0023.

With regards to your second question regarding revision of title to adjacent
~andowners, it is clear that title will revert back or fall to those present owners contiguous to the road way if the road bed is owned by the public authority.

Regarding the question of private rights of access vis a vis each other, the contiguous land owners are governed by the Articles of the Civil Code under Article 705 with regards to land locked properties. That article states:

"The servitude of passage is the right for the benefit of the dominant estate whereby persons, animals, or vehicles are permitted to pass through the servient estate. Unless the title provides otherwise, the extent of the right and the mode of its exercise shall be suitable for the kind of traffic necessary for the reasonable use of the dominant estate"

Also, you should be aware that our office has opined that even purely private roads and highways, used only by certain individuals and not the general public, can become public thoroughfares if they are maintained bhy the police jury for three years or more. Op. Atty. Gen. No: 81-942, October 16t , 1981.

Page 3

Mr. S. Andrew Shealy
Opinion No. 02-0091
Page 3

Therefore it is our office’s opinion that even if the public right of way is no longer maintained by the police jury, there still may be some public right of way of passage as a public thoroughfare. However, this is a private right in which we make no opinion as to outcome.

With regards to your third question as to any particular outcome with regards to the scenarios posed by you, we also render no opinion. These are factual determinations best left to courts on a case by case basis.

Hopefully this satisfies your inquiry. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at the number and address listed herein.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

A$~taO0 nNt~o r~, Ge ne ral
RPI/BPG/rt