Earl F. Shields, Larry J. Shields, and Robert L. Shields v. Rodney L. Taylor
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 525
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Adjacent parcels owned by the Shields and Taylor with Taylor’s parcel north of Shields’ parcel.
- Shields historically used a dirt road across Taylor’s land to reach the Back Twenty Acres, about 40–50 years.
- Taylor purchased his property about 15 years before the 2010 dispute; Hudoff and Chuke were prior owners.
- In Sept. 2010, a dispute arose when Shields’ logging activity used a route across Taylor’s land; Taylor objected and blocked access.
- Shields alleged an easement by consent/acquiescence and sought damages; the defense and claim were tried by bench trial in Oct. 2011; the court found no prescriptive easement and entered judgment for Taylor on the counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the counterclaim sufficiently pled a prescriptive easement | Shields pled consent/acquiescence and long use as basis for prescriptive easement | Taylor contends counterclaim only alleged consensual access, not a prescriptive theory | Counterclaim did not plead a prescriptive easement; only consent/acquiescence was alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilfong v. Cessna Corp., 838 N.E.2d 403 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (prescriptive easement requires adverse use unless shown by permission)
- Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (reformulated elements of adverse possession for prescriptive rights)
- Capps v. Abbott, 897 N.E.2d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (duration with knowledge/acquiescence can create presumption of adverse use)
- Downing v. Owens, 809 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (20-year prescriptive period and adverse use concepts)
- Greenco, Inc. v. May, 506 N.E.2d 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (prescriptive rights require adverse use and notice)
- Bass v. Salyer, 923 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (permissive use defeats prescription; possession must be adverse)
- Miller v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, 679 N.E.2d 1329 (Ind. 1997) (notice pleading and elements of claims under Indiana rules)
- ARC Construction Mgmt., LLC v. Zelenak, 962 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (notice pleading allows focus on operative facts to alert defendant)