ILNews

Court upholds injunction in easement case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of a homeowner who sued neighbors after telephone poles, fence posts, and other objects were placed along a disputed easement area to prevent people from driving along it.

In Ronald N. Rennaker, et al. v. Raymond D. Gleason, No. 92A03-0808-CV-412, the appellate court determined a 40-foot driving easement existed by virtue of the language in deeds conveying lots along Blue Lake. It also upheld the permanent injunction requiring the removal of and prohibiting objects obstructing the easement.

When a portion of land along the lake owned by Frank Harrold was first platted in 1922 it indicated a "30' Drive" that ran between two lots to allow access to the shore. The original lots didn't extend to the lake, but granted homeowners an easement over the property between the lots and the lakeshore. A plat of survey done in 1958 depicted the land along the lakeshore divided into lots corresponding with the width of the original lots, along with a 40-foot wide easement along the shore. Harrold eventually conveyed the lakeside lots to the original owners.

A dispute arose between Ronald Rennaker and other homeowners with another homeowner, Raymond Gleason, as to whether the 40-foot easement was a driving easement. Rennaker and others didn't think so, and placed objects in the way to prevent driving. Gleason filed a complaint and the trial court declared the easement was a valid driving easement and permanently enjoined the homeowners from encroaching or impeding access to it and the 30-foot easement.

The Court of Appeals examined the language in the Lakeside Lot Deeds, which conveyed the lakeside lots to the original owner, and determined the language created the 40-foot driving easement by express reservation.

Rennaker and others claimed the clause "subject to a 40 foot wide public easement for roadway purposes" isn't sufficient to create an express easement by using the phrase "subject to" based on Mayer v. BMR Props. LLC, 830 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). But the appellate court concluded that Nelson v. Parker, 687 N.E.2d 187 (Ind. 1997), was applicable to the instant case.

"The use of the phrase 'subject to' makes the language regarding the easement ambiguous because this phrase would normally indicate words of qualification in reference to something that has already been created rather than words creating an interest," wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. "However, the forty-foot easement had yet to be created as the 1958 Plat of Survey did not indicate who received the interest in the easement nor is there any other evidence of a conveyance of an interest in the depicted easement."

The appellate court examined the deeds conveying the original lots, as well as deeds in subsequent additions on the land, and determined Harrold wanted to provide lot owners in any of the additions access to Blue Lake, and the use of "right of way" and "drive over the drive-ways" implies access by vehicles. Also reading the easement provision with the list of other restrictions in the deeds supports the conclusion that "roadway purposes" contemplates a greater burden on the 40-foot easement than just foot traffic, wrote the judge.

The Court of Appeals also upheld the injunction, which Rennaker and others argued was vague and unnecessarily broad. The order mandates removal of any objects that deny or impede access to the easements, so items that need to be cleared are only those that prohibit reasonable passage of vehicles along the easement, wrote Judge Bailey.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT