Celebration Worship Center, Inc. v. Patrick Tucker and Carolyn P. Tucker, A/K/A Patty Tucker, 2015 Ind. LEXIS 570

Celebration Worship Center (the church) owns lots 1–3; Patrick and Carolyn (Patty) Tucker own lot 4 adjacent to the east. Dispute concerns a grassy strip along the east side of lot 3 (the homeowners’ claimed side yard) and the gravel driveway immediately east of it.
Patty Tucker acquired lot 4 by quitclaim from her mother (Weathers), who owned and occupied the property from 1972 until 2003; the church acquired its title in 2003. Boundary issues arose in 2003 after surveys were conducted.
The homeowners counterclaimed that Weathers had acquired the grassy strip by adverse possession (10‑year period) and a prescriptive easement to use the gravel driveway (20‑year period); homeowners sought summary judgment based on Weathers’ long use predating the church’s title.
Designated evidence included sworn affidavits from Weathers and Patty describing continuous, exclusive use and maintenance (mowing, gravel purchase, driveway maintenance), historic photographs, a survey recognizing part of lot 3 as used by lot 4, and tax records showing taxes paid on lot 4 and belief those payments covered the disputed area.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the homeowners on both adverse possession and prescriptive easement; the Court of Appeals reversed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the homeowners (via Weathers) met the elements for both claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Celebration)	Defendant's Argument (Tucker)	Held
Adverse possession: whether disputed grassy strip was acquired by adverse possession	Church contends the relevant possession began in 2003 and homeowners cannot meet the statutory period or tax-payment requirement	Homeowners argue Weathers’ continuous, exclusive, notorious use from 1972 satisfied control, intent, notice, duration, and good‑faith tax payment	Held for Tucker: Weathers’ pre‑2003 adverse possession ripened title; homeowners satisfied tax requirement by good‑faith belief and records; summary judgment affirmed
Prescriptive easement: whether driveway use ripened into an easement	Church argues easement not established or was abandoned when garage orientation changed	Homeowners argue uninterrupted, adverse use of driveway to access west‑facing garage from 1972 onward established prescriptive easement; continued use for ingress/egress persists	Held for Tucker: 20‑year adverse use established prescriptive easement predating church title; no designated evidence of abandonment

Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (articulates adverse possession elements: control, intent, notice, duration, and tax‑payment statutory requirement)
Wilfong v. Cessna Corp., 838 N.E.2d 403 (Ind. 2005) (applies adverse possession framework to prescriptive easements with statutory differences)
Chickamauga Properties, Inc. v. Barnard, 853 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (prescriptive easement use presumed adverse after unexplained 20 years; owner may rebut by showing permission)
Bauer v. Harris, 617 N.E.2d 923 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (abandonment of easement requires nonuse plus intent to abandon)
Consol. Rail Corp. v. Lewellen, 682 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 1997) (discusses abandonment and related easement principles)
Kwolek v. Swickard, 944 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (limits easement scope; easement holder may not block easement by parking)
Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 126 N.E.2d 573 (Ind. 1955) (fee simple title passes by operation of law once adverse possession is established)
Hoose v. Doody, 886 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (contrasting tax‑payment evidence; claimants could not reasonably believe taxes paid covered disputed lot)