ILNews

Trial court erred in land survey dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although a Starke Circuit Court correctly rejected a legal survey performed on land owned by a trust, the special judge did err by imposing two prior surveys to establish boundary lines of the property, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

In Lane Alan Schrader Trust as Trustee under the Trust Agreement dated 16th day of November, 1999, and known as Lane Alan Schrader Self-Declaration of Trust v. Larry Gilbert and Nancy J. Malecki, 75A04-1112-PL-676, the Lane Alan Schrader Trust owned land that shared boundaries with land of Larry Gilbert and Nancy Malecki. Schrader wanted to operate a business out of a barn on the property, which required at least a 20-foot setback, and purchased the property based on the belief that the setback was in place. However, after buying the property, the trust had two surveys preformed, with both indicating that the setback was less than 20 feet.

Schrader had a legal survey performed on the property by Torrenga Surveying, which indicated there was a 20-foot setback and this survey was recorded in the county recorder’s office.

The neighbors appealed, arguing that survey should be stricken from the office. The trial court determined the legal survey was defective for failure to use good surveying practices and imposed the two previous surveys. The Court of Appeals affirmed the striking of the legal survey, but reversed the imposition of the previous surveys.

The applicable statutory provisions require that strict notice provisions be followed, and there was no evidence that notice was given before the two previous surveys were conducted, Judge John Baker wrote.

“The trial court had three options: It could either accept the Torrenga Survey, order that a new survey be performed, or order the county surveyor to mark the boundary lines according to the trial court’s findings as supported by the evidence,” he wrote.

The judges ordered the trial court enter a new order consistent with this opinion.

 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT