Altevogt v. Brand
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 105
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Long Lake Park was platted in 1932 by Hartzell, who owned land adjacent to Big Long Lake, and the plat created a six-foot lakefront easement for each lot running north–south.
- Between the blocks and the lake shore lies the Indian Trail and various drives, with all drives, alleys, and walks stated to be for the use of the lot owners and their guests.
- Front-lot owners border the lake with the Indian Trail separating their lots from the shore, while back-lot owners claim rights to use the Indian Trail if plaintiffs prevail.
- On November 18, 2008, the front-lot owners sued to quiet title to portions of the Indian Trail between their lots and the lake, naming back-lot owners as defendants.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the back-lot owners on May 6, 2011, and the plaintiffs appeal claiming public dedication, adverse possession, and co-tenancy theories.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that there was no public dedication and that plaintiffs failed to prove all elements of adverse possession, while avoiding a definitive quiet title finding for all lot owners as co-tenants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Indian Trail publicly dedicated? | Plaintiffs argued the trail was a public easement under dedication. | Defendants contended no dedication to the public occurred. | No public dedication; plat language showed use by lot owners and guests only. |
| Do plaintiffs establish title by adverse possession? | Plaintiffs claimed control, intent, notice, and duration were satisfied. | Defendants argued lack of exclusive control, intent, and notice; duration not proven. | Plaintiffs failed to prove all elements by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Are all lots owners co-tenants of the Indian Trail? | Co-tenancy was implied from the plat and ownership. | Defendants argued co-tenancy or disputed fee ownership; not necessary to resolve adverse possession. | Trial court’s conclusion did not quiet title for all as co-tenants; easement exists for all. |
| Does Hartzell’s plat language establish a private easement for lot owners rather than public use? | Hartzell plat implied rights to use drives, alleys, and walks by front-lot owners. | Plat expressly stated drives, alleys, and walks are for lot owners and their guests, not the public. | Yes; plat language supports private use by lot owners, not public dedication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (adverse-possession elements: control, intent, notice, duration)
- Nodine v. McNerney, 833 N.E.2d 57 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) (possession not exclusive where others have rights to use the land)
- Roberts v. Feitz, 933 N.E.2d 466 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (reaffirms Fraley elements and burden of proof for adverse possession)
- Maxwell v. Hahn, 508 N.E.2d 555 (Ind.Ct.App. 1987) (co-owners may construct improvements in easements if not interfering with others’ rights)
- Hoose v. Doody, 886 N.E.2d 83 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (ten-year statutory period for adverse possession; requires duration)
- Kumar v. Bay Bridge, LLC, 903 N.E.2d 114 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (summary-judgment standard; no genuine issue of material fact)