A Louisiana appeals court has upheld a lower court's decision to deny a request for a preliminary injunction by John Witham, Sr., Madeline Witham, Carrie Beazley, and John Witham, Jr. against Pamela Mangham Coke. The court ruled that the Witham family did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of irreparable harm regarding their access to a servitude strip of land. This ruling affects the Witham family's ability to enforce their rights to access their property through a road maintenance agreement established in 2002.
The case, filed under docket number 57,017-CA, revolves around a dispute between the Witham family and Coke over property rights and access to a private road. The court's ruling on August 26, 2026, confirmed that the Witham family could continue to access their properties without interference from Coke.
The Witham family, who have owned their property since 2002, entered into a road maintenance agreement with the previous owner, Marie Brown. This agreement granted them a servitude of passage over a private road and a servitude strip of land for ingress and egress. In 2020, Coke became the owner of Brown's property through a donation, which included the servitude rights. In 2025, tensions escalated when Coke placed metal T-posts and “no trespassing” signs on the servitude strip, which the Witham family claimed obstructed their access.
The Witham family filed their petition for a preliminary injunction in September 2025, arguing that Coke's actions interfered with their rights to access the servitude strip. They sought to have the court order Coke to remove the obstructions and cease any further interference. In response, Coke contended that the agreement did not grant the Witham family unlimited access to the servitude strip and that they had already established multiple routes to the private road.
The trial court held a hearing where both parties presented their cases. John Witham, Sr. testified about the history of the property and the servitude agreement. He claimed that Coke's actions were retaliatory and created inconvenience for his family. However, Coke argued that her placement of the T-posts was merely to delineate property boundaries and did not interfere with the Witham family's access to their driveway.
On December 22, 2025, the trial court denied the Witham family's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the servitude agreement only allowed for access to the private road and did not grant the Witham family unrestricted use of the servitude strip. The court noted that while the T-posts may have limited the Witham family's use of the strip, they did not block access to their driveway or their properties. The court concluded that the Witham family had not demonstrated irreparable harm, which is necessary for a preliminary injunction under Louisiana law.
Following the trial court's ruling, the Witham family appealed, arguing that the court misapplied Louisiana Civil Code Procedure articles 3663 and 3601. They contended that article 3663 should apply, as it allows for injunctive relief without the need to prove irreparable harm. However, the appeals court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the Witham family did not show that Coke's actions disturbed their property rights. The court emphasized that the Witham family continued to access their properties without interference.
The court ruled, "The testimony presented at the hearing shows that Plaintiffs continue to access their properties and the Private Road across several routes they established through the Servitude Strip." This statement highlighted the court's finding that the Witham family had not suffered any significant harm that warranted injunctive relief.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the Witham family, as it reaffirms their limited rights to the servitude strip and upholds Coke's actions regarding property boundaries. The decision may discourage similar future requests for preliminary injunctions when property owners do not adequately demonstrate irreparable harm.
As for what’s next, the Witham family may consider further legal options, including a potential appeal to a higher court. However, details about any related cases or future legal actions were not available in the court filing. The ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in property disputes and the importance of clearly defined agreements.