ILNews

Ruling: Easement to Eagle Creek indeed leads to water

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court ruling that forbid residents of a lakefront subdivision from accessing the water from a public easement was overturned Monday by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

“Surely the reason for the easement was not merely to give residents a way to reach the edge of Bay Colony’s grounds so that they could gaze upon the shore and the water,” Senior Judge Randall Shepard wrote. The court reversed Marion Superior Judge Thomas Carroll’s ruling that limited access to the city-owned lake from the easement maintained by nonprofit neighborhood association Bay Colony Civic Corp.

“We thus conclude that the Association is correct that the easement was intended to give the residents a way to reach the reservoir,” Shepard wrote in Bay Colony Civic Corp. v. Pearl Gasper Trust and Bruce F. Waller, 49A05-1207-PL-365. “The trial court erred by barring residents from using the easement to access the water. … We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand with directions to grant the Association’s motion for partial summary judgment.”

Pearl Gasper and Bruce Waller own lots in Bay Colony and posted private property signs on their docks unattached to their lots that had been built by previous owners. They also put up gates and fences to restrict access to the public reservoir. They cited plat language that said the easement “is established as an area over, through, and across which the owners in this subdivision, their tenants and invitees shall have access to public land adjoining Eagle Creek Lake.” They argued nothing in the easement language provided access to the water.  

After the plaintiffs blocked access to the reservoir from their docks, Bay Colony, the nonprofit neighborhood association, cleared brush, added riparian stone and made a footpath on the easement to make it safer and easier for residents to get to the water without using Gasper’s or Waller’s docks. Gasper and Waller sued the association and won an injunction from the trial court barring it from entering their lots, altering or removing their docks or blocking Gasper’s access to her dock. The trial court also agreed with the plaintiffs’ allegation that the association misused $1,732 to complete its upgrade.

The panel also reversed the monetary judgment. “We find no violation of the Association’s bylaws,” Shepard wrote.

 

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT