From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...
RCC Properties, L.L.C. v. Wenstar Properties, L.P.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
930 So.2d 1233 (2006)
Facts
AZT Winnsboro Louisiana, Inc. (AZT) owned adjacent parcels of land and sold one of the parcels to Wenstar Properties, L.P. (Wenstar) (defendant). Wenstar bought the parcel in order to operate a Wendy’s restaurant franchise on it. As part of the sale agreement, AZT granted a servitude to Wenstar over the adjoining parcel. This servitude prohibited the adjoining parcel from being used for the operation of any restaurant with a drive-in window that sold burgers or chicken sandwiches as its primary business. The terms of the agreement granted this servitude for a period of 20 years, and the agreement was properly recorded. A few years later, AZT sold the servient parcel to RCC Properties, L.L.C. (RCC) (plaintiff). RCC subsequently received an offer for that property from a corporation that wanted to acquire the parcel to build and operate a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant franchise. The potential purchaser would not agree to the sale, however, with the servitude agreement in place. RCC filed a petition seeking a declaratory judgment asking for the servitude to be declared invalid or inapplicable. The trial court held that the servitude was invalid because it was unclear and ambiguous. Wenstar appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Drew, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
