Town of Ellettsville, Indiana Plan Commission and Richland Convenience Store Partners, LLC
111 N.E.3d 987
Ind.2018Background
- In 1996 a subdivision plat created a utility easement across Lot 1 benefitting Lot 2; the plat (drawn to scale) showed the easement’s path and width.
- DeSpirito owns Lot 2 (dominant estate); Richland owns Lot 1 (servient estate); both deeds referenced the recorded plat and easements.
- In 2015 Richland petitioned the Town of Ellettsville Plan Commission to relocate the utility/sewer easement 15–20 feet to increase Lot 1’s buildable area; Richland would pay relocation costs.
- DeSpirito opposed; the Plan Commission approved the relocation, finding minimal disruption and improved development potential.
- DeSpirito sought judicial review; the trial court held the easement’s location is fixed by the plat and cannot be relocated without the dominant owner’s consent, granted summary judgment for DeSpirito, and enjoined relocation.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed, holding Indiana adheres to the common-law rule that fixed easements cannot be unilaterally relocated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeSpirito) | Defendant's Argument (Richland / Town) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a servient owner unilaterally relocate a fixed easement shown on a recorded plat? | The easement is fixed by the plat; relocation requires consent of all affected estate-holders. | The Restatement (Third) §4.8 permits reasonable unilateral relocation if it does not significantly impair the easement. | Held: No. Indiana follows the common-law bright-line rule: fixed easements cannot be relocated without consent of affected estate-holders. |
| Is the easement here “fixed” rather than floating? | The plat, drawn to scale, fixes the easement’s location and width; parol evidence and practice confirm its position. | Richland argued the plat only showed width and not precise distances, so the easement is not fixed. | Held: The plat’s scale and delineation make the easement’s location determinable and therefore fixed. |
| Should Indiana adopt Restatement (Third) §4.8 permitting unilateral relocation? | Reject adoption; it would upset settled expectations, increase litigation, risk judicial takings, and be economically inefficient. | Richland/Town: Restatement is more modern and equitable, balancing servient owner development against easement burdens. | Held: Indiana declines to adopt §4.8; retains common-law rule requiring consent. |
| If the Restatement were adopted, would it apply to fixed easements? | Even under Restatement text, its introductory clause excludes servitudes with locations determined by instrument or circumstances. | The Restatement drafters and some courts interpret §4.8 to permit relocation of some fixed easements absent express prohibition. | Held: Court reads §4.8’s plain language as inapplicable to fixed easements and rejects the drafters’ broader interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dudgeon v. Bronson, 64 N.E. 910 (Ind. 1902) (exercise of an easement in a particular course with consent fixes its location)
- Ritchey v. Welsh, 48 N.E. 1031 (Ind. 1898) (once a way is selected it cannot be changed without both parties' consent)
- Shedd v. American Maize Prods. Co., 108 N.E. 610 (Ind. App. 1915) (applies the rule that fixed easements appurtenant cannot be unilaterally relocated)
- Wischmeyer v. Finch, 107 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. 1952) (restrictive covenants cannot be modified without consent of all owners in the subdivision)
- M.P.M. Builders, LLC v. Dwyer, 809 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 2004) (adopts Restatement approach allowing unilateral relocation in some circumstances; treated as an outlier by the Indiana Supreme Court)
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702 (2010) (plurality opinion recognizing that judicial elimination of established property rights can constitute a taking)