Trust No. 6011, Lake County Trust Co. v. Heil's Haven Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 179
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Beemsterboer Property borders Heil's Haven Condominiums; cross easements and encroachments were established via several agreements (Water and Walkway Easement, Septic Easement, Replacement Walkway Easement, Encroachment Agreement).
- Water and Walkway Easement granted ingress/egress to the Association and access to a pump/utility house; termination provisions were tied to water failure and to automatic termination if the Association gains lakefront access by another means.
- Beemsterboers began fence and staircase construction that would obstruct the Association's use of easements and the sidewalk; Bickel installed a sidewalk that extended beyond the described easement area.
- Trial court granted preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Beemsterboers from obstructing easements and required removal/repair of the staircase and sidewalk; judgment was entered based on findings favoring the Association.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding one easement terminated under its own terms, while other easements and encroachments were addressed with specific fixes and allowances.
- The decision ultimately affirmed the septic easement and encroachment provisions, but reversed the Water and Walkway Easement portions and related injunctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Water and Walkway Easement terminated in its entirety | Beemsterboers: easement terminated when fire/natural events affected water. | Association: termination only affected water license, not ingress/egress. | Water and Walkway Easement terminated; ingress/egress rights terminated. |
| Whether the Septic Easement permits obstruction by a fence | Fence would not block access with accommodations. | Fence would obstruct access to septic tanks. | Finding 10 and Conclusion 2 erroneous; judgment partially sustained to avoid obstruction with access accommodations. |
| Whether the Beemsterboers can maintain status of the Encroachment Agreement while the deck encroachment remains broader | Encroachment Agreement governs deck; court should enforce. | Encroachment variance allowed. | Paragraph 4 affirmed; encroachment restrictions limited to current encroachment scope. |
| What is the scope of the court-ordered relief after reversal of Water and Walkway Easement | Relief should preserve Association’s access. | Relief should reflect termination of easement. | Judgment adjusted; injunctions limited to septic and encroachment issues; Water and Walkway relief reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Larry Mayes Sales, Inc. v. HSI, LLC, 744 N.E.2d 970 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (easement termination may be determinable by event triggering condition precedent)
- Erie-Haven, Inc. v. First Church of Christ, 292 N.E.2d 841 (Ind.App.1973) (terminating event can terminate an easement integration)
- McCauley v. Harris, 928 N.E.2d 309 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (dominant and servient estates; rights incident to easement enforcement)
- Barkwill v. Cornelia H. Barkwill Revocable Trust, 902 N.E.2d 836 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (deference to findings of fact; de novo review on issues of law)
- GTA v. Shell Oil Co., 171 Ind.App. 647, 358 N.E.2d 750 (Ind.App.1977) (interpretation of contract terms in easement context)