Hochstetler Living Trust v. Friends of the Pumpkinvine Nature Trail, Inc.
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 561
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Nature Trail seeks to quiet title to an 80-foot strip in Elkhart County adjoining a large farm owned by the Trust.
- 1899 Plank Deed conveyed an 80-foot strip to the railroad, later part of the Pumpkinvine corridor.
- Railroad abandoned the tracks in 1981; Penn Central became owner of the interest; Nature Trail later acquired the corridor from Penn Central via quitclaims in 1993–1994.
- Firestone class action (Boone County) settled in 2001–2004, concluding Penn Central/APU held only an easement in the disputed tract.
- The Boone Circuit Court’s declaratory judgment included Paragraph 8, excluding certain title disputes from the settlement’s scope; the Nature Trail filed a quiet-title action in 2008.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Nature Trail; Trust appeals on preclusion and ownership merits
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature Trail ownership hinges on the Plank Deed’s grant. | Trust: Plank Deed conveyed only an easement. | Nature Trail: Plank Deed conveyed fee simple. | Plank Deed conveyed fee simple. |
| Abandonment affects the railroad’s interest if only easement was conveyed. | If only an easement, abandonment extinguishes it and title reverts to the fee simple owner. | If fee simple, abandonment does not extinguish it. | Abandonment does not extinguish a fee-simple interest. |
| Does Paragraph 8 exclude Nature Trail’s quiet-title action from the Firestone declaratory judgment? | Nature Trail falls within Paragraph 8’s exclusion as a non-class member disputing title | Paragraph 8 would bar such actions under Firestone | Paragraph 8 excludes the current dispute; not precluded. |
| Does Paragraph 4 limit the Nature Trail’s remedy to the Firestone settlement? | Settlement provides exclusive remedy for class members and successors in interest | Paragraph 4 controls class members only; not applicable to Nature Trail | Paragraph 4 does not preclude the current action. |
Key Cases Cited
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Clark, 646 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (abandonment of easement does not undo fee simple ownership)
- Firestone v. American Premier Underwriters, Inc., 891 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Paragraph 8 excludes disputes between non-parties to the settlement from the declaratory judgment)
- Perry v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 871 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (claim preclusion scope among privies)
- Dugan v. Mittal Steel USA Inc., 929 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2010) (summary judgment standard of review for law)
- Simkin v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 214 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. App. 1966) (fee simple vs. easement distinction in railroad corridors)
- Tazian v. Cline, 686 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 1997) (abandonment impact on railroad rights in fee simple context)
- Poznic v. Porter Cnty. Dev. Corp., 779 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (factors indicating fee simple conveyance in railroad deeds)