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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?