COA orders trial court to define, locate easement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred in denying a trust’s request for an easement of necessity relating to a certain parcel of land because the previous property owners didn’t grant themselves an easement before they transferred the land to the trust, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In The William C. Haak Trust v. William J. Wilusz and Judith A. Wilusz, Benjamin Luna, No. 64A04-1008-PL-567, John and Susan Hall brought an action to quiet title and have an easement of necessity declared on William and Judith Wiluszes’ land or on Benjamin Luna’s land. The Halls previously had owned the parcel that the Wiluszes’ owned, which they lost to foreclosure. The Halls later sold another parcel to the William C. Haak Trust.

The parcel sold to the trust was landlocked, but the Halls were able to access public roads through Luna’s land. The Halls’ relatives previously owned that land and allowed the Halls access to the parcel. Both the Wiluszes’ and Luna’s parcels next to the trust’s land have access to a road via their northern borders.

Several years after the foreclosure, the Halls brought an action seeking an easement of necessity, for which the trust was later substituted because the trust agreed to purchase the landlocked parcel from the Halls. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Wiluszes and Luna. The trial court reasoned the Halls weren’t entitled to an easement of necessity because they had prior opportunities to grant themselves an easement across what is now the Wiluszes’ land or arrange for an easement across Luna’s property. The trial court also denied the trust’s motion to correct error.

The Court of Appeals noted the trial judge cited no authority for her decision that the Halls lost the right to assert an easement of necessity by not granting themselves an easement before transfer, and the appellate court couldn’t find any authority.

The delay in pursuing their claim is irrelevant, wrote Judge Cale Bradford, and the right to an easement of necessity doesn’t expire or attach itself to a particular owner.

“… there is no statute of limitations on easements of necessity and the right to one does not expire upon transfer of either the dominant or serviette estates,” he wrote, citing an Illinois case that relied on the Indiana Supreme Court case, Logan v. Stogdale, 123 Ind. 372, 377, 24 N.E. 135, 137 (1890), which recognized that an easement of necessity is appurtenant.

Judge Bradford also noted that it makes no difference that the land transfer between the Halls and Wiluszes occurred because of foreclosure.

The judges found the trust has the right to an easement of necessity across the Wiluszes’ parcel, but not regarding Luna’s parcel. They ordered the trial court to take evidence sufficient to allow it to locate the easement of necessity across the Wiluszes’ land and define its dimensions.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.