James Van Ella v. VanHorne Properties, LLC
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 311
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Bod’s Beach Subdivision plat (recorded 1950) created lots 1–20 and a 25-foot roadway easement along the rear of the lots, dedicated for use by lot owners.
- In 1970 some lot owners petitioned to vacate several lots (3–14, 18–20) and the contiguous platted easement; the court granted the petition and purported to vacate those portions and the public’s right to use them (the "1970 Order").
- Several lots (including lots now owned by VanHorne) had been sold to third parties before the 1970 petition; those prior owners were not parties to or served with the vacation proceeding.
- VanElla (owner of the servient estate and affiliated entities) thereafter obstructed and altered the 25-foot easement (barn, fence, truck, ruts) and refused repairs; VanHorne (owner of lots 16–17) sued for declaratory/injunctive relief to restore and use the full 25-foot easement.
- The trial court granted VanHorne’s partial summary judgment, holding the 1970 Order did not divest nonparticipating lot owners of their easement rights and awarding VanHorne use and reasonable repair rights; VanElla appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (VanHorne) | Defendant's Argument (VanElla) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1970 vacation order extinguished the private 25-foot platted easement | The 1970 Order is void as to lot owners who were not parties; the easement survived and benefits VanHorne’s lots | The 1970 Order validly vacated the easement; VanElla (and others) are fee owners and may control the easement | Court held the 1970 Order did not affect the easement as to nonparties; easement remains for VanHorne |
| Whether VanHorne may use and repair the entirety of the 25-foot easement for ingress/egress to lots 16–17 | As dominant estate owner, VanHorne has right to reasonable repairs and full use necessary for ingress/egress | VanElla claims control as servient owner and asserts defenses (bona fide purchaser, laches, acquiescence) | Court held VanHorne (dominant estate) may use and make reasonable repairs; VanElla may not unreasonably impede use |
| Whether bona fide purchaser or laches defenses bar VanHorne’s relief | N/A (VanHorne argues rights persist) | VanElla asserts bona fide purchaser status and laches/acquiescence should preclude relief | Court rejected these defenses as changing the outcome given the surviving easement (court did not need to resolve all collateral defenses) |
| Scope of permissible repairs/alterations to the easement | Repairs reasonably necessary to make easement effectual are allowed | Servient owner may also make reasonable repairs but cannot alter original configuration or unreasonably obstruct | Court allowed reasonable and necessary repairs by both parties but prohibited actions that unreasonably interfere or materially alter easement configuration |
Key Cases Cited
- Bob Layne Contractor, Inc. v. Buennagel, 301 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973) (statutory vacation does not by itself abrogate restrictive covenants or owners’ rights absent notice/consent)
- McIntyre v. Baker, 660 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (plat restrictions cannot be modified without consent of all lot owners)
- Adult Grp. Props., Ltd. v. Imler, 505 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (restrictive covenants create property rights binding on grantees and successors)
- Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Tishner, 699 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (dominant estate holder has rights incident to easement, including reasonable repairs)
- Klotz v. Horn, 558 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 1990) (dominant holder cannot impose extra burdens; servient holder cannot materially impair easement)
- McCauley v. Harris, 928 N.E.2d 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (reiterating that dominant estate may make reasonable improvements and servient owner must not obstruct)