93 N.E.3d 809
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Opportunity Options owned a large tract in Crawford County; multiple parcels were sold at a 2013 tax sale to different buyers, including WindGate (two noncontiguous tracts) and Sanders (two noncontiguous tracts).
- After the sale, three of the four tracts (WindGate 1, Sanders 2, WindGate 2) became landlocked with no recorded ingress/egress easements; Sanders 1 retained public-road access.
- WindGate sued to quiet title to its combined parcel (WindGate 1 and 2); Sanders answered claiming an implied easement by necessity across WindGate 1 for the benefit of Sanders 2.
- The trial court tried the easement issue by agreement of the parties, found unity of title before severance, and concluded the tax sale severed that unity leaving Sanders 2 without road access, creating an implied easement by necessity over WindGate 1 for Sanders 2.
- WindGate argued an alternate route existed via preexisting dirt/gravel private roads across neighboring (Northern Real Estate) parcels and contended any easement should be located there, not across WindGate’s land.
- The trial court rejected WindGate’s alternate-route argument because ownership and continuity of those northern parcels/easements were not established; trial court quieted title to WindGate subject to a reasonable, least-intrusive easement across WindGate 1 for Sanders 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WindGate) | Defendant's Argument (Sanders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an implied easement by necessity arose at the tax sale severance | No; WindGate argued lack of evidence for required elements (apparent/continuous prior use and necessity) and urged alternate access over Northern Real Estate | Yes; Sanders argued the tax-sale severance left Sanders 2 landlocked and an easement by necessity arose at severance across WindGate 1 | Court held an easement by necessity was implied because unity of title existed pre-severance and Sanders 2 was left without access to a public road |
| Whether an easement should instead be imposed over Northern Real Estate parcels | WindGate: easement should be over preexisting dirt/gravel private roads to the north | Sanders: cannot force third-party landowners to grant access; only WindGate can be compelled | Court held WindGate failed to show entitlement to an easement over Northern Real Estate (ownership/continuity not established) and refused to require Sanders to use alternate routes |
| Whether Sanders’ failure to file a counterclaim barred relief | WindGate argued procedural deficiency (no counterclaim) | Sanders proceeded by answer seeking declaration; parties agreed to try the easement issue | Court proceeded on agreed issue and resolved easement on the merits; judgment stands |
| Proper scope of relief — location/width of easement | WindGate sought to avoid an easement across its parcel or minimize intrusion | Sanders sought an easement sufficient for ingress/egress to public road | Court quieted title subject to an easement for ingress/egress, directing parties to negotiate location and width "reasonable by the least intrusive means" |
Key Cases Cited
- Menard, Inc. v. Dage-MTI, Inc., 726 N.E.2d 1206 (Ind. 2000) (standard of review for bench trial findings and conclusions)
- Indiana Reg’l Recycling, Inc. v. Belmont Indus., Inc., 957 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (courts will not force dominant estate to seek alternate easement to avoid burdening existing servient parcel)
- William C. Haak Tr. v. Wilusz, 949 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (elements for easement implied by necessity: unity of title and necessity at severance)
- Hysell v. Kimmel, 834 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishing easement by prior use from easement by necessity)
- Pardue v. Smith, 875 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (explaining that easement by necessity requires showing of absolute necessity, while prior-use easement focuses on apparent, continuous servitude)