ILNews

Judges uphold family has no right of access through neighbor’s property

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A family claiming that for more than 50 years they had an easement to access portions of their land through a neighbor’s property lost before the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Earl Shields, Larry Joe Shields and Robert Shields appealed the trial court’s findings of fact, and conclusions of law and order from Dec. 9, 2011, and the subsequent denial of their motion to correct errors in favor of neighbor Rodney Taylor. The Shields said they have driven across Taylor’s property on a dirt road accessed from a public road to reach the back portion of their land for the last 40 or 50 years, before Taylor owned the land. The Shields believed they had an easement from a previous owner, but none was found recorded. They also said that the two previous owners allowed them to use the property to access their own.

Taylor never gave the Shields permission, nor did they ask, to use his property to access theirs, and a dispute arose in 2010 after the Shields had logging done on their property. The logging company cut a trail through Taylor’s property to access the Shields’ property. Taylor filed a complaint in 2011 alleging trespass and asking for a restraining order to prevent the Shields from entering his property.

The Shields filed a counterclaim asserting that Taylor gave them access to the road by his own consent or acquiescence.  The trial court found that the Shields, by asserting that Taylor consented to their use of the Taylor real estate until 2010, acknowledged the permissive nature of their past access to Taylor’s land. They also allege that Taylor consented, then at some point rescinded the entry. The judge ruled the Shields do not have a legal basis for continued entry onto Taylor’s property.

The Shields did not sufficiently plead facts claiming that their use of the dirt road over Taylor’s property connecting the public road and the back part of their property had established a prescriptive easement, the Court of Appeals ruled. The Shields must establish clear and convincing proof of control, intent, notice and duration as the party claiming the existence of a prescriptive easement.

The court focused on the duration element, pointing to Indiana Code 32-23-1-1, which establishes that a prescriptive easement must be shown to have been in existence uninterrupted for at least 20 years. The Shields in their counterclaim did not plead that they used the dirt road in an adverse manner for 20 years or more with regards to when Taylor owned the land, so the trial court did not err in finding their counterclaim alleged only consensual entry or a consensual right of access to Taylor’s property, Judge Elaine Brown wrote in Earl F. Shields, Larry J. Shields, and Robert L. Shields v. Rodney L. Taylor, 53A04-1202-PL-95.

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

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. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT