Luther T. Collins v. Metro Real Estate Services, LLC
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 167
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Joseph Howell owned two adjacent parcels: a landlocked "dominant" parcel and a neighboring "servient" parcel that provided the only access to a public road. Howell recorded a deed purporting to grant an easement over the servient parcel to benefit the dominant parcel while he owned both.
- Howell’s servient parcel later was foreclosed and purchased by Luther Collins in 2009; the dominant parcel was later foreclosed and purchased by Metro Real Estate in 2012.
- Collins objected to Metro’s use of the recorded easement and sued to quiet title. The trial court found an easement existed for Metro; Collins’s motion to correct error was denied.
- On appeal, Collins argued (1) Howell could not grant an easement to himself (merger/invalid grant), and (2) no implied easement (neither prior use nor necessity) exists across Collins’s property.
- The Court of Appeals held Howell’s recorded self-grant created no valid express easement, but affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the alternative ground that an easement of necessity was implied because the dominant parcel was landlocked and unity of title had existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Collins) | Defendant's Argument (Metro) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an express easement by grant exists where the grantor owned both dominant and servient parcels when recording the deed | Howell’s self-grant was ineffective under the merger rule; one cannot have an easement over land one owns | The recorded easement facilitated mortgage financing and should be respected (mortgage exception to merger) | No valid express easement by grant: self-grant while owning both parcels had no legal effect; mortgage-exception not adopted absent controlling authority |
| Whether an implied easement exists (prior use or necessity) | No easement by prior use (record shows conflicting/non‑use) and no easement of necessity because of alleged lack of unity or alternative access | Unity of title and landlocked condition support an implied easement of necessity; prior use factual disputes aside | Easement of necessity affirmed: parties stipulated unity of title and that the dominant parcel lacked other access; record insufficient to support easement by prior use and scope of easement route to be determined later if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 2 N.E. 188 (Ind. 1885) (discusses merger/confusion and that an easement may revive or be implied upon severance under specific circumstances)
- William C. Haak Trust v. Wilusz, 949 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (summarizes creation of easements by grant, prescription, and implication; distinguishes necessity and prior‑use easements)
- Borovilos Restaurant Corp. II v. Lutheran Univ. Ass'n, Inc., 920 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (recognizes that an easement can merge into fee title when dominant and servient estates unite)
- Cockrell v. Hawkins, 764 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (easement of necessity arises when severance leaves one parcel without access; landlocked status is controlling)
- Whitt v. Ferris, 596 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (easements are limited to the purpose for which they are created; court may limit width to what is necessary for access)
- Woodling v. Polk, 473 S.W.3d 233 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (developer’s attempt to deed an easement to himself while owning both parcels was ineffective)
- Pergament v. Loring Prop., LTD, 599 N.W.2d 146 (Minn. 1999) (discusses a mortgage-related exception to merger doctrine raised by appellee but not adopted by the court)