90 N.E.3d 1171
Ind.2018Background
- Don and Bobbie Gunderson (as trustees) owned three Long Beach, IN lakefront lots (the Disputed Property) originating from an 1837 federal land patent; the deed/plats do not show a clear upland–shore boundary.
- In 2010 Long Beach adopted a DNR administrative line defining state-owned shoreland (an administrative OHWM at a fixed elevation) that lakefront owners protested as infringing property rights.
- Gundersons sued the State/DNR seeking declaratory relief and quiet title, claiming their fee extended to the water’s edge; the State/Intervenors claimed Indiana holds lands below the OHWM in public trust.
- Trial court held State owns lands below the DNR-defined OHWM and that private riparian interests overlap but may not unduly impair public rights; parties appealed and the Court of Appeals partly reversed.
- The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed (1) the federal-law equal-footing question establishing the initial boundary at statehood and (2) the state-law question whether Indiana later relinquished title; it affirmed that the common-law ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is the boundary and reversed recognition of overlapping private title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boundary of State title at statehood (what passed to Indiana) | Gundersons: private fee extends to the instantaneous water’s edge (movable freehold) | State/Intervenors: equal-footing title includes shore up to natural OHWM (including temporarily exposed shore) | Held: Federal equal-footing law vests title to beds and shores up to the natural OHWM in the State at statehood |
| Effect of the 1837 federal land patent underlying Gunderson deed | Gundersons: patent and deed prima facie convey fee to water’s edge | State/Intervenors: federal patents did not convey land below the OHWM absent express pre-statehood grant | Held: As a matter of federal law, the patent conveyed no land below the OHWM absent an express pre-statehood grant |
| Validity/authority of DNR administrative OHWM (fixed elevation) | Gundersons: DNR cannot fix or alter property boundaries by administrative rule | State: DNR has statutory authority and the administrative line provides useful notice/jurisdictional clarity | Held: Legal boundary is the natural (common-law) OHWM; DNR may not supplant it absent clear legislative authorization, though administrative datum serves regulatory purposes and is not declared void |
| Scope of public trust uses on the shore | Gundersons: public trust should be limited to waters; private landowners retain exclusive shore use | Intervenors/LBCA: public rights include reasonable recreational uses (walking, fishing, swimming, etc.); State endorses public trust to OHWM | Held: The public trust includes at minimum walking along the natural OHWM and other transient shore activities necessary to access traditional uses (navigation, commerce, fishing); expansion beyond recognized uses deferred to legislature/judiciary restraint |
Key Cases Cited
- Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (recognizing state title to beds and shores and limits on federal patents below high-water mark)
- Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (establishing equal-footing principle that new states acquire title to beds of navigable waters)
- Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (public trust limits on state power to dispose of trust lands)
- Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (distinguishing federal equal-footing boundary issues from state-law changes and confirming state title under equal footing)
- Gibson v. United States, 166 U.S. 269 (illustrating that title to shore and submerged soil vests in states)
- Barney v. City of Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324 (extension of public trust doctrine inland to navigable lakes)
- United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64 (equal-footing transfers of title to beds of navigable waters at statehood)
- Glass v. Goeckel, 703 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. 2005) (discussing OHWM definition and that temporarily exposed shore falls within public trust)