ILNews

Court decides 2 disputed land cases

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on two cases today involving disputed tracts of land on lakefront properties and adverse possession in Kosciusko County.

In Daisy Farm Limited Partnership v. Michael and Jill Morrolf, No. 43A04-0707-CV-390, the appellate court reversed the trial court judgment in favor of Michael and Jill Morrolf that a disputed tract of land didn't pass to Daisy Farm by virtue of adverse possession. Daisy Farm and its predecessors owned the lot adjoining the Morrolfs' in a neighborhood located on Lake Tippecanoe. Both maintain piers extending from their property into the lake. At issue in the case is whether Daisy Farm had acquired a portion of the Morrolfs' lot by adverse possession. Daisy Farm claims the Morrolfs' pier mars Daisy Farm's view of the lake and use of its own pier.

The trial court determined the riparian boundaries of the lots using a straight extension method of continuing the properly lines straight into the lake. The Court of Appeals affirmed this method.

The trial court also determined that Daisy Farm and the previous owners of its lot did not acquire by adverse possession a narrow, triangular area located in the platted lines of the Morrolfs' lot that begins between the cottages and runs north to the lake. It found Daisy Farm failed to show exclusivity of the disputed tract of land because other people, including the general public, exercised an easement across the north portion of the Morrolfs' lot. The court also determined as a matter of law Daisy Farm can't prevail on its adverse possession claim because the owners of the lot never paid taxes on the disputed section.

But the trial court erred in determining as a matter of law Daisy Farm and its predecessors were prohibited from acquiring a portion of the Morrolfs' lot on the basis they, along with other homeowners and the general public, had the right to use the northern portion of the lot as a thoroughfare, wrote Senior Judge George Hoffman. Also, the court erred in not considering whether Daisy Farm and its predecessors complied with Indiana Code 32-21-7-1 regulating adverse possession and the adverse possessor paying all taxes he or she believes in good faith to be due on the land during the period which the adverse possessor claims to have possessed the land.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings with instructions.

In Michael A. and Darlene S. Hoose v. William H. and Judith A. Doody, No. 43A03-0708-CV-420, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings that Michael and Darlene Hoose didn't prove they possessed record title or adverse possession to the land in question.

Michael Hoose acquired the title from his parents to Lot 8 located in the original plat of Osburn's subdivision of Big Chapman Lake. The Doodys held the title to Lot 9, which is immediately adjacent to the eastern border of Lot 8. North of these two lots is an area that abuts the lake's shoreline that is used as a park by the subdivision's residents. However, the Hooses and Doodys disagree about whether the area directly north of the Hooses' lot has been designated as a dedicated park, as is the case with the area directly north of Lot 9.

The Hooses maintained a pier in the disputed area; when the Doodys installed a pier that encroached on the disputed area, the Hooses filed a verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Doodys. The Hooses alleged the original warranty deed conveyed to Hooses' parents the exclusive use of the disputed area to the Hooses. The warranty deed conveyed to Hooses' parents the proprietorship of the land between the lot and the lake and agreed no buildings or occupancy would be allowed there. The deed also stated if the strip of land was ever vacated, the owners of Lot 8 would have priority of purchase.

The Doodys' filed a counterclaim against the Hooses, claiming the disputed area was a park to which every owner in the subdivision had the right to use. The trial court ruled the Hooses didn't prove any official record of ownership of the disputed land, didn't carry their burden of proof under any claim for adverse possession, and didn't satisfy the statutory requirement of paying taxes on the land.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding the plain language of the warranty deed and extrinsic evidence supports that the signatories of the plat intended for the disputed area to be a park, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

The Hooses argued on appeal that they didn't fail to comply with Section 32-231-7-1 by not paying taxes on the disputed land because the auditor didn't include the land on the tax rolls. This section requires claimants pay all the taxes that he or she reasonably believes in good faith to be due on the land. Because the Hooses owned Lot 8 and paid taxes on it, they couldn't have reasonably believed they in good faith owned Lot 7 and didn't have to pay taxes on it, wrote Judge Crone.

Judge L. Mark Bailey dissented, believing the language of the original warranty deed conveyed the disputed area to Michael's parents in fee simple. He wrote that the deed unambiguously conveyed Lot 8, the disputed area with a restrictive covenant, and provides the first right of refusal to purchase the land.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT