103 N.E.3d 667
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Patricia Jones owns a lake-adjacent parcel that adjoins a SFLECC-owned shorefront area; Von Hollow Association owns intervening property (a narrow “tail” and lane) and holds a shorefront license from SFLECC.
- Jones (and predecessors) used a walkway and the lane from 1994–2015 to access the shorefront; relationships between Jones and Von Hollow were friendly until 2015.
- SFLECC issues annual Shore Front Licenses (SFLs); both Jones and Von Hollow had separate SFLs granting access to the same shorefront area, but the most recent SFLs did not delineate internal boundaries.
- In 2015 Von Hollow changed the gate lock and stopped giving Jones a key; Jones placed tables, pavers, signs, and cameras in the shorefront area thereafter.
- Jones sued for a declaratory judgment recognizing a prescriptive easement over Von Hollow’s tail (and injunctive relief and trespass damages); Von Hollow counterclaimed for trespass. The trial court denied Jones relief, found Jones committed criminal trespass, awarded fees to Von Hollow, and ordered SFLECC to issue a joint license.
- On appeal the court affirmed denial of the prescriptive easement, reversed the criminal trespass finding and the fee award, and reversed the directive requiring SFLECC to issue joint licenses; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones acquired a prescriptive easement over Von Hollow’s tail | Jones: continuous, open use of walkway since 1994; Von Hollow never gave notice ending use or that use was permissive | Von Hollow: Jones’s use was permissive due to cordial relationship, accommodation (e.g., moving deck), and no hostile claim of right | Court: Use was permissive; prescriptive easement denied |
| Whether Jones committed criminal trespass for placing items in the shorefront area | Jones: she had SFL permitting access to shorefront and did not need Von Hollow’s consent to be in shorefront area | Von Hollow: Jones interfered with its possession/use of the shorefront and thus knowingly trespassed | Court: Jones did not commit criminal trespass under §35-43-2-2 because both parties had SFLs; criminal trespass finding reversed; fee award reversed |
| Whether Von Hollow committed trespass against Jones | Jones: (asserted trespass claim against Von Hollow in trial) | Von Hollow: denied trespass; argued Jones’s actions were wrongful | Court: Trial court correctly found no trespass by Von Hollow (affirmed) |
| Whether the trial court could order SFLECC to issue joint licenses to Jones and Von Hollow | Jones: joint licensing would formalize co-use and protect improvements | Von Hollow: (opposed to court-imposed directive on non-party) | Court: Trial court erred; cannot direct relief against non-party SFLECC; joint-license directive reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Menard, Inc. v. Dage-MTI, Inc., 726 N.E.2d 1206 (Ind. 2000) (standards for reviewing findings and judgment)
- Quillen v. Quillen, 671 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 1996) (findings clearly erroneous standard)
- Yoon v. Yoon, 711 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 1999) (appellate deference to trial court credibility)
- Kwolek v. Swickard, 944 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Wilfong v. Cessna Corp., 838 N.E.2d 403 (Ind. 2005) (applies Fraley reformulation of adverse possession elements to prescriptive easements)
- Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (reformulated adverse possession elements: control, intent, notice, duration)
- Carnahan v. Moriah Prop. Owners Ass’n, 716 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 1999) (prescriptive easements require stringent proof)
- Capps v. Abbott, 897 N.E.2d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (existence of prescriptive easement is a question of fact)