Jamison L. Beetz and Leah J. Beetz v. Joe D. Bryant and Anne E. Bryant Revocable Trust, Joe D. Bryant and Anne E. Bryant, Stephen A. Legan and Jenifer A. Legan, and Ron Zimmerman (mem. dec.)
41A04-1612-PL-2755
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Pre-1978 Gluff family tract divided into Parcels A–D; only Parcel D borders Stones Crossing Road; A, B, C are landlocked. 1978–79 transfers: Bryants acquired Parcel C and received a 1979 recorded easement for ingress/egress that included a bridge and path along Parcel D.
- In 1982, Brown Circuit Court entered an Agreed Judgment creating a new easement described as “exclusive” that applied to all three landlocked parcels (A, B, C); the Bryants recorded the 1982 Judgment in their chain for Parcel C but the 1982 Judgment was not recorded in the chain for Parcel D (the Beetzes’ later-acquired parcel).
- Over time the Bryants conveyed to a trust; Parcels A and B were sold to Zimmermans and Legans; Parcel D was sold to others and ultimately to Jamison and Leah Beetz in 2013. The Beetzes knew of the 1979 easement but allege no notice of the 1982 Judgment.
- The Beetzes maintained the easement area (mowing), paid taxes and insurance on it, and used the bridge; a fire truck later damaged the bridge, prompting disputes among owners about repair responsibility and payment receipt from the fire department.
- Procedural posture: Beetzes sued (declaratory relief) in 2016 seeking (1) determination whether the 1982 Judgment/easement binds them; (2) whether they share duty/right to repair and maintain with other parcel owners; (3) whether they have the exclusive right to receive the fire department’s payment; and (4) damages for defendants’ alleged failure to maintain. The trial court dismissed with prejudice under T.R. 12(B)(6). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Beetzes are bound by the 1982 Judgment/easement despite lack of record notice | Beetzes: 1982 Judgment not recorded in their chain; they had no actual notice, so they are not bound by unrecorded easement | Defendants: 1982 Judgment binds successors (res judicata); Beetzes succeeded to Gluff’s interest and are bound | Court: On pleadings, Beetzes alleged lack of actual/constructive notice; dismissal improper as to this claim — remand for further proceedings |
| Whether res judicata binds successors with no notice | Beetzes: Anderson controls — purchaser without notice of unrecorded easement is not bound | Defendants: Skelton/related authority — a prior decree conclusively binds those claiming under a party | Held: Court rejects reliance on Skelton here and follows Anderson; question requires further development on remand |
| Whether Beetzes have duty/right to repair and maintain the easement jointly with other parcel owners (if 1982 Judgment applies) | Beetzes: If 1982 applies, it defines shared duties/rights among affected parcels | Defendants: Dispute scope of maintenance obligations and who may accept payment/hire contractors | Held: Contingent on whether 1982 Judgment applies to Beetzes; remanded for factual and legal determination |
| Whether Beetzes have exclusive right to receive fire department payment and possible damages for failure to maintain | Beetzes: Seek exclusive receipt of payment and damages for others’ failure to maintain | Defendants: Contest exclusive entitlement and damages claim | Held: Contingent on resolution of 1982 Judgment’s applicability; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 170 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. 1960) (purchaser without actual or constructive notice of an unrecorded easement is not bound by it)
- State v. Cinko, 292 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 1973) (applying Anderson: recording and visible markers are necessary to bind a purchaser)
- Skelton v. Sharp, 67 N.E. 535 (Ind. 1903) (prior judicial decree may conclusively adjudicate title as against successors claiming under a party)
- Thornton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 585 (Ind. 2015) (standard of review for T.R. 12(B)(6) motions)