James L. Hochgesang v. Stanley McLain, Sr. (mem. dec.), 13A01-1608-PL-1944

Plaintiff James Hochgesang owns two adjoining parcels (141 and 115 acres) purchased in 1995; he accessed them via a two-track gravel road crossing land later owned by defendant Stanley McLain Sr.
The gravel road runs from a public road past McLain’s house to the property line; Hochgesang used it for logging, hunting, and farming and allowed others to use it.
McLain purchased his property in 2011 and in 2012 blocked the road with cables/bulldozer after telling Hochgesang he could no longer use it; McLain still allows some farmers to use the road.
Hochgesang sued in 2015 seeking recognition of a prescriptive easement and an injunction against McLain; a bench trial was held in April 2016.
The trial court denied relief, finding Hochgesang failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the required elements of a prescriptive easement (control, intent, notice, and 20-year duration), especially lacking proof of predecessors’ intent, notice, and the requisite 20-year period.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the evidence was insufficient to meet the heightened clear-and-convincing standard and deferring to the trial court’s credibility and fact findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prescriptive easement exists	Hochgesang: continuous, adverse use since 1995 plus tacking predecessors’ use (30–70 years) satisfies the 20-year requirement	McLain: use was permissive/insufficiently proved; plaintiff failed to prove intent, notice, and statutory duration	No — plaintiff failed to prove intent, notice, and 20-year duration by clear and convincing evidence
Whether plaintiff proved intent to claim exclusive right	Hochgesang: asserted uninterrupted, hostile use beginning 1995 and predecessors’ use continues the period	McLain: record lacks specific evidence of predecessors’ hostile intent or that permission was withheld	No — trial court reasonably found intent not proved by clear and convincing evidence
Whether plaintiff provided notice to owners	Hochgesang: long use provided constructive/actual notice	McLain: testimony was vague; witnesses lacked knowledge about permission	No — evidence did not establish actual or constructive notice
Whether use met statutory 20-year duration (including tacking)	Hochgesang: tacking predecessors’ use meets 20 years (claimed 30–70 years)	McLain: insufficient, sporadic, and ambiguous evidence of predecessors’ use; possible permissive use	No — failed to prove uninterrupted adverse use for required 20-year period

Wilfong v. Cessna Corp., 838 N.E.2d 403 (Ind. 2005) (prescriptive easement elements and clear-and-convincing standard)
Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (appellate review of clear-and-convincing evidence issues; defer to factfinder credibility)
Downing v. Owens, 809 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (rights vest by operation of law once prescriptive easement proven)
Wolfe v. Gregory, 800 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (tacking predecessors’ use to satisfy statutory period)
Celebration Worship Ctr., Inc. v. Tucker, 35 N.E.3d 251 (Ind. 2015) (prescriptive easements may be abandoned)
Vandenburgh v. Vandenburgh, 916 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard where appellee fails to file brief)
Bass v. Salyer, 923 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Trial Rule 52(A) review of findings and conclusions)
Whitman v. Denzik, 882 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (definitions of intent and notice for prescriptive easements)