78 N.E.3d 666
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- RCSP owns Lot 1 and DeSpirito owns adjoining Lot 2 in a subdivision; a 1996 recorded plat shows a 15-foot utility easement running east–west across Lot 1 that carries a private sewer line serving Lot 2. The plat shows the easement’s approximate location but contains no metes-and-bounds for the easement itself.
- RCSP petitioned the Town of Ellettsville Plan Commission to relocate the utility easement 15–20 feet south and to amend the plat; RCSP proposed to replace and pay for the private sewer line relocation.
- The Plan Commission approved the plat amendment over DeSpirito’s objection, concluding the relocation was reasonable and permitted by the Town code.
- DeSpirito sought judicial review and injunctive/declaratory relief; the trial court granted summary judgment for DeSpirito, holding (inter alia) the Town violated §153.003 of the subdivision regulations because DeSpirito, as a financially interested owner, did not consent, and that the relocation amounted to an impermissible private taking absent statutory vacation procedures.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed: it held §153.003 applies to preliminary subdivision submissions (not plat amendments), the constitutional/takings concern was unsupported, the vacation statutes cited were inapplicable, and the Restatement (Third) approach permits reasonable unilateral relocations by the servient owner subject to safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeSpirito) | Defendant's Argument (RCSP / Town) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §153.003 subdivision regulation | §153.003 requires consent of all owners with financial interest; DeSpirito must consent to any plat amendment relocating easement | §153.003 governs preliminary subdivision submissions, not amendments to recorded plats; it was inapplicable here | The court held §153.003 applies to preliminary plat submissions, not to amendments of an existing plat, so it did not bar the Plan Commission’s action |
| Constitutional takings / private use prohibition | Relocating DeSpirito’s easement at RCSP’s request and benefit is a taking for private use forbidden by Constitutions | No authority shows reasonable relocation of a private utility easement (paid by servient owner, preserving utility) is a constitutional taking | The court found the trial court’s constitutional-taking concerns misplaced and unsupported by cited authority |
| Applicability of statutory plat-vacation procedures (IC 36-7-4-714 / -711) | RCSP must follow statutory vacation procedures when altering recorded plat rights absent unanimous consent | RCSP’s petition sought relocation of an easement on its own lot, not vacation/stripping of covenants; vacation statutes do not apply | The court held the vacation statutes cited govern plat vacations, not a servient owner’s reasonable relocation of an existing utility easement, so they were inapplicable |
| Controlling rule for unilateral relocation of easement | Old Indiana cases foreclose unilateral relocation once location is fixed; DeSpirito’s easement location is on the plat and cannot be changed without his consent | Restatement (Third) §4.8 permits servient owner to make reasonable relocations at its expense provided utility is not significantly lessened, burdens not increased, nor purpose frustrated; Plan Commission acted within authority | The court adopted the Restatement approach: where location/dimensions aren’t fixed by instrument, servient owner may reasonably relocate so long as safeguards are met; record showed relocation would not significantly lessen utility or increase burden, so Plan Commission’s approval stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. United States, 964 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 2012) (defines easement as a nonpossessory interest and explains dominant/servient estates)
- Duke Energy of Ind., LLC v. City of Franklin, 69 N.E.3d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (easement does not convey right of possession)
- Thomas v. McCoy, 30 N.E. 700 (Ind. App. 1903) (articulates historical rule that once an easement route is selected it cannot be changed without consent)
- Ritchey v. Welsh, 48 N.E. 1031 (Ind. 1898) (applies the rule for easements by necessity regarding selection and change of route)
- Shedd v. American Maize Prods. Co., 108 N.E. 610 (Ind. App. 1915) (discusses pleading requirements where location/dimensions of easement are not specified)
- Pulos v. James, 302 N.E.2d 768 (Ind. 1973) (concerns restrictive covenants and limits on taking covenant property for private use)
- M.P.M. Builders, LLC v. Dwyer, 809 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 2004) (adopts Restatement (Third) §4.8 permitting reasonable servient-owner relocations subject to safeguards)