William C. Haak Trust v. Wilusz, 949 N.E.2d 833

Trust owns landlocked parcel in Porter County with accessible routes via Wilusz and Luna parcels, which border 50 North Road.
Wilusz parcel lost access when Halls conveyed it; Trust’s parcel became landlocked with no road access.
Luna’s parcel ownership history includes prior unity with Hall/Trust land, but transfer did not render Trust land accessible.
Trust sought easement of necessity across Wilusz or Luna parcels in quiet-title action; trial court denied.
Court of Appeals reverses in part and remands, concluding easement across Wilusz is valid, but not across Luna; provides dimensions and maintenance guidance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Easement of necessity across Wilusz land	Trust is entitled to an easement of necessity due to unity of title and inaccessibility.	No absolute necessity; alternative access or prior arrangements exist or could have been pursued.	Trust has easement across Wilusz parcel.
Easement of necessity across Luna land	Unity of title history supports easement by necessity.	Transfer did not create necessity because access existed via other routes or not required.	No easement across Luna parcel.
Timing and permanence of easement right	Right to easement attaches through unity of title and does not expire with transfers.	Delay in pursuing claim may affect rights or weight of evidence.	Easement arises with unity of title and is not time-limited by transfers; delay irrelevant.
Remand for location and dimensions; maintenance	Dimension and location should be determined to reflect necessity.	Not explicit here; focus is on whether easement exists.	Remand with instructions to locate and define easement across Wilusz land; owner bears maintenance cost absent agreement.

Logan v. Stogsdale, 123 Ind. 372 (1890) (easement of necessity passes with dominant estate and burden survives transfers)
Innkeepers of New Castle, Inc., 271 Ind. 286 (1979) (necessity arises at conveyance, not by post-conveyance events)
Moore v. Ind. & Mich. Elec. Co., 229 Ind. 309 (1950) (easement cannot arise against the lands of a stranger)
Larabee v. Booth, 463 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (implied easement across grantor's remaining land when no outlet to road)
Reed v. Luzny, 627 N.E.2d 1362 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (easement by necessity requires absolute necessity when no alternative access)
McConnell v. Satterfield, 576 N.E.2d 1300 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (trustee bears burden; negative judgment on necessity claims reviewed for legal error)
Whitt v. Ferris, 596 N.E.2d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (necessity requires actual inaccessibility following severance of unity of title)
Pardue v. Smith, 875 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishes easements by prior use from those by necessity)
Logan v. Stogsdale, 123 Ind. 372, 24 N.E. 135 (1890) (see above (duplicate entry for emphasis))