Indiana Regional Recycling, Inc. v. Belmont Industrial, Inc.
957 N.E.2d 1279
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Belmont owns Parcels I and III; Indiana Regional owns Parcel II, with a gravel path through Parcel I providing access to Parcel II.
- CSX railroad has a right-of-way easement on its tracks, not a fee interest in Parcel II; Reichwein Avenue abuts Parcel II and was vacationed by IMDC in 1998.
- In 1993, parcels were severed from a single tract; Parcel II went to Indiana Regional, Parcels I and III to Belmont.
- From 1994–2003 Indiana Regional openly used the Parcel I gravel path to access Parcel II; Belmont purchased Parcels I and III in 2004.
- In 2008 Belmont blocked access by erecting a fence after an attempted crossing; Indiana Regional sued for easement by necessity/implied by prior use and for tortious interference with its tenant’s contract.
- Trial court granted Belmont summary judgment on all Counts; Indiana Regional appeals, seeking reversal on easement by necessity and tortious interference claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easement by necessity | Indiana Regional asserts easement by necessity on Parcel I due to land severance and lack of public access. | Belmont argues no necessity because alternative access or inquiry into railroad crossing may exist; purchaser protection applies. | Easement by necessity existed; Belmont not a bona fide purchaser; reversal and judgment for Indiana Regional on Count II. |
| Tortious interference with contract | Belmont knew of tenant contract and interfered with ingress/egress by fencing access to Parcel II. | No valid contract or justification shown; lack of proof of a tenant or enforceable contract. | Trial court erred; genuine issue of material fact exists; remand for further proceedings on tortious interference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. Bassett, 128 Ind. 118 (Ind. 1891) (notice by visibility and continuous use constitutes an easement by necessity)
- McConnell v. Satterfield, 576 N.E.2d 1300 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (necessity not proven where alternate access exists or is feasible)
- Hunt v. Zimmerman, 216 N.E.2d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 1966) (way of necessity must be more than convenient; other paths negate existence)
- Mishawaka-St. Joseph Loan & Trust Co. v. Neu, 196 N.E.2d 85 (Ind. 1935) (possession and inquiry put purchaser on notice of burdens or rights)