Bath v. Courts
Decision Date | 26 January 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 3-483,3-483 |
Citation | 459 N.E.2d 72 |
Parties | Ralph L. BATH and Margaret J. Bath, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. John R. COURTS and Nancy Courts, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below). a112. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James O. Wells, Jr., Rochester, for appellants.
Frederick E. Rakestraw, Brown, Rakestraw & Kehoe, Rochester, for appellees.
Ralph and Margaret Bath and John and Nancy Courts are neighbors owning adjacent land on the shore of Nyona Lake.The Courts maintained a pier which extended out from their own property.Because the Courts wanted to build a platform at the end of their pier without interfering with the public pier, they angled their pier away from the public pier to cross the Baths' shorefront property.Shortly after the Courts angled their pier, the Baths built a pier parallel to the property boundary they shared with the Courts.This pier came within two feet of the Courts's pier and interfered with its use.The Courts obtained an injunction for the removal of the Baths' pier.It allowed the Courts to maintain their pier at an angle because it did not unreasonably interfere with the Baths' riparian rights or the public's rights.On appeal the Baths contend that their boundaries extend to the middle of Lake Nyona allowing them to maintain their pier and requiring the Courts to remove their pier from the Baths' property.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court to set a reasonable time for the Courts to move their pier within the boundaries of their shorefront property.
There is no set rule in Indiana for establishing the extension of boundaries into a lake between contiguous shoreline properties.1Therefore, to arrive at the most equitable result, we have consulted the law in jurisdictions with numerous lakes.The only case law on point comes from Wisconsin.
In Wisconsin, where a shoreline approximates a straight line and where the onshore property boundaries are perpendicular to the shore, the boundaries are determined by extending the onshore boundaries into the lake.Nosek v. Stryker(1981), 103 Wis.2d 633, 635, 309 N.W.2d 868, 870.Such is the fact situation here.This method, as applied to this case, is best illustrated by the diagram below:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
This diagram shows that the Courts' pier encroaches upon the Baths' riparian tract only if we follow this method and if their tract extends to the length of the pier.Indiana case law supports the adoption of extending the shore boundaries as illustrated in the diagram.
A riparian owner acquires his rights to the water from his fee title to the shoreland.Brown v. Heidersbach(1977), 172 Ind.App. 434, 440, 360 N.E.2d 614, 619.The land conveyances to the Baths and to the Courts indicate that they own the shoreland contiguous to their onshore boundaries.According to the Indiana Supreme Court, a shoreline boundary vests title in the landowner to the middle of the stream.Brophy v. Richeson(1893), 137 Ind. 114, 119-20, 36 N.E. 424, 425;accord, Brown, supra, 172 Ind.App. at 440, 360 N.E.2d at 619.It is undisputed that the Baths' and the Courts' lots both extend to the shoreline of the lake.Therefore, the Baths and the Courts have riparian rights to their property fronting Lake Nyona.Sanders v. De Rose(1934), 207 Ind. 90, 95-6, 191 N.E. 331, 333.
Riparian rights to accretion support this determination that the onshore boundaries extend out into the lake at a right angle.Accretion, the increase in land caused by earth, sand, or sediment deposits, generates a source of title which usually vests in the riparian owner of the land to which the alluvion attaches.Longabaugh v. Johnson(1975), 163 Ind.App. 108, 110, 321 N.E.2d 865, 867.If Lake Nyona were to naturally recede, title to the new land would vest in the riparian owners by the extension of his shore boundaries.Therefore, it seems equitable and practicable in his case to follow the Wisconsin method of extending into the water the onshore boundaries which meet the water at a right angle.
Even though we are willing to extend the onshore boundaries, we are not willing to extend them to the middle of Lake Nyona.Early Indiana courts recognized that riparian rights included ownership to the middle of the stream or river.Ross v. Faust(1876), 54 Ind. 471, 476-77;Brophy, supra137 Ind. at 121, 36 N.E. at 425;Sanders, supra207 Ind. at 95, 191 N.E. at 333;Brown, supra172 Ind.App. at 440, 444, 360 N.E.2d at 619;Patton Park v. Pollak(1944), 115 Ind.App. 32, 40, 55 N.E.2d 328, 331.Unless the deed revealed a contrary intention, riparian rights were extended from the shoreline to the middle of the riverbed because the courts thought it unlikely that a grantor would retain the strip of land under the water which would be of no practical value to him in the absence of access and which could be a source of litigation.Earhart v. Rosenwinkel(1940), 108 Ind.App. 281, 290-91, 25 N.E.2d 268, 272.However, the Indiana Supreme Court held that an enclosed lake, like Lake Nyona, bordered by various riparian lot owners, is not navigable and is not subject to the rule that the riparian owner holds title from his shoreline to the middle of the lake.Stoner v. Rice(1889), 121 Ind. 51, 53-4, 22 N.E. 968, 969.The Court explained that such application of this rule to lakes would exclude some owners from title to any of the waterbed.Id. at 54, 22 N.E. at 969.In the early court decisions, determinations of riparian rights depended to a great extent upon whether the lake was navigable or non-navigable.
Indiana courts have failed to clearly define "navigable."The most recited definition is that navigability in law is navigability in fact.2State v. Kivett(1950), 228 Ind. 623, 629, 95 N.E.2d 145, 149.The Baths contend that Lake Nyona is navigable because it is used for fishing and for recreation.Although it would be desirous to define "navigable" lakes and even though many states have found a lake to be "navigable" because it is used for recreation, our statutory law renders such a determination unnecessary.3
According to the governing statute, the State of Indiana holds in trust for public use and enjoyment all freshwater lakes; it makes no distinction between a navigable lake and a non-navigable lake:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Gunderson v. State
...landowner gains property as the OHWM shifts lakeward due to the gradual deposit of sand or other material.13 Bath v. Courts , 459 N.E.2d 72, 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). The doctrine of erosion, by contrast, has the opposite effect: the riparian landowner loses property as the boundary shifts l......
-
Carnahan v. Moriah Property Owners Ass'n
...a lake is navigable or nonnavigable. Berger Farms, Inc. v. Estes, 662 N.E.2d 654, 656 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing Bath v. Courts, 459 N.E.2d 72, 75 (Ind.Ct.App.1984)). A nonnavigable lake is one "enclosed and bordered by riparian landowners." Id. (citing Bath, 459 N.E.2d at 75 (citing in turn......
-
Watson v. Thibodeau, 29A04-8909-CV-411
...it did not decide the case on the basis of extending their property line straight out into the Reservoir, as required by Bath v. Courts (1984), Ind.App., 459 N.E.2d 72. Rather, they claim it erred by angling it into the Reservoir so as to make their dividing line in the water perpendicular ......
-
Center Townhouse Corp. v. City of Mishawaka
...has been applied to require a landowner to remove his pier when its placement was infringing on his neighbor's pier. Bath v. Courts, 459 N.E.2d 72, 76 (Ind.Ct.App. 1984). Although Indiana has not expressly done so, some courts in other states have recognized a riparian right to an unobstruc......