Close Armstrong LLC v. Trunkline Gas Company
3:18-cv-00270
N.D. Ind.Mar 31, 2023Background
- In 1959 predecessors of the parties granted Trunkline blanket (floating) easements over the two properties, expressly allowing Trunkline to select, change, or alter pipeline routes and to install additional non-parallel pipelines "at any time or from time to time." Trunkline installed the 100 Line in 1960.
- Trunkline has since maintained and regularly inspected a roughly 66-foot corridor around the 100 Line but has not exercised its other future relocation or additional-pipeline rights on these parcels.
- Landowners (Close Armstrong and the Dicksons) sought USDA conservation easements; a 60-year title exam revealed Trunkline’s floating easements, blocking USDA acceptance and prompting these declaratory-judgment suits.
- In phase one the court held the 1959 instruments unambiguous and created floating easements; the current phase addresses whether those easements have become fixed (by use, acquiescence, estoppel, or laches) and, if so, their scope.
- The court held as a matter of law that Trunkline’s reserved future rights remain floating and cannot be judicially fixed now; it granted summary judgment for Trunkline on acquiescence/estoppel/laches.
- The only remaining triable issue is the narrow factual question of what corridor width is reasonably necessary for Trunkline’s exercised use of the existing 100 Line (i.e., the fixed corridor for that installed pipeline).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1959 floating easements have become fixed by practice/use so as to confine all present and future pipeline rights to the existing corridor | Landowners: Trunkline’s long-term use and maintenance of a ~66-ft corridor (and related communications/stump agreement) fixed the easement to that corridor (they propose 66–200 ft) | Trunkline: the grants expressly reserved future, movable rights to alter routes and add non-parallel lines; freedom of contract and precedent protect those floating rights | Court: Future, unexercised rights remain floating as a matter of law; the court will not fix all future rights now |
| Whether acquiescence or estoppel bars Trunkline from asserting the broader easement rights | Landowners: Trunkline’s conduct (non-use outside corridor, communications, tree planting) amounted to acquiescence/estoppel | Trunkline: its conduct was consistent with the grant; instruments were recorded and known; no misleading conduct or lack of notice | Court: Acquiescence/estoppel inapplicable to limit an express easement here; summary judgment for Trunkline |
| Whether laches prevents Trunkline from asserting its rights | Landowners: long delay and conduct justify equitable bar | Trunkline: non-use does not extinguish rights; the easement expressly contemplates future exercise | Court: Laches fails; no inexcusable delay or waiver—summary judgment for Trunkline |
| What is the scope (width/corridor) of the exercised easement around the existing 100 Line | Landowners: request fixed corridor (e.g., 66–200 ft) adequate for maintenance and to secure conservation easement | Trunkline: the underlying grant permits use across the whole property; if fixed, it should reflect reasonable needs but not preclude future rights | Court: Triable factual issue remains as to what width is reasonably necessary for the existing 100 Line; bench trial to determine corridor for exercised use |
Key Cases Cited
- Close Armstrong, LLC v. Trunkline Gas Co., LLC, 434 F. Supp. 3d 658 (N.D. Ind. 2020) (prior phase: 1959 instruments create floating easements; framed issues for fixation)
- Town of Ellettsville v. DeSpirito, 111 N.E.3d 987 (Ind. 2018) (explains when an otherwise undefined easement can be fixed by practice/consent)
- Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Tishner, 699 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (court may fix width of an exercised pipeline easement reasonably necessary for maintenance)
- Burrow v. Terre Haute & Logansport R.R. Co., 8 N.E. 167 (Ind. 1886) (early recognition that a grantee may select location of a future transportation easement within reasonable limits)
- Dudgeon v. Bronson, 64 N.E. 910 (Ind. 1902) (exercise of use over time can fix the location of an easement)
- Rees v. Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 452 N.E.2d 405 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (fixing otherwise-undefined pipeline corridors to a width reasonably necessary for safety and operation)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Lewellen, 682 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 1997) (non-use alone does not extinguish an easement)
- Am. Land Holdings of Ind., LLC v. Jobe, 604 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing vesting of a right and its later exercise; rights preserved despite delayed use)