Carnahan v. Moriah Property Owners Ass'n

• Decision Date: 27 September 1999
• Docket Number: No. 45S03-9909-CV-492.,45S03-9909-CV-492.
• Citation: 716 N.E.2d 437
• Parties: Donald CARNAHAN and Joyce Carnahan, Husband and Wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. MORIAH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellees (Defendants below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

716 N.E.2d 437

Donald CARNAHAN and Joyce Carnahan, Husband and Wife, Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v.MORIAH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellees (Defendants below).

No. 45S03-9909-CV-492.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

September 27, 1999.

Paul A. Rake, Gregory A. Crisman, Hammond, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.

Charles R. Deible, Hammond, IN, Attorney for Appellees.

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

SULLIVAN, Justice.

The Moriah Property Owners Association, Inc., which owns approximately 64% of a private lake, seeks to restrict watercraft use on it.The Carnahans, who own a portion of the lake, oppose the restrictions.They contend that they have a prescriptive easement for the recreational use of motorized watercraft on the entire lake.We hold that the Carnahans have failed to establish a prescriptive easement.

Background

Lake Julia is an approximately 22-acre lake located in Lake County.Prior to 1972, the lake and all the surrounding property were owned by Charles and Julia Drewry.In November of 1972, the Carnahans purchased a lot from the Drewrys, which was approximately one acre in size and included a portion of the lake bed.From the beginning, the Carnahans engaged in recreational activities including ice skating, fishing, swimming, and the use of various watercraft on portions of the entire lake.In the spring of 1973, the Carnahans placed a houseboat on the lake.They powered the houseboat around the lake, skied behind it, and lived on it intermittently until 1976 when they finished building a lakeside home.Thereafter, they used a ski boat on the lake until 1986, and wave runners and jet skis through the summer of 1993.

On July 26, 1984, the Carnahans purchased an adjacent one acre plot; approximately one-fifth of this new acreage constituted the lake bed.Beginning in 1987, the land around and under Lake Julia was surveyed and an engineering plan prepared which platted various lots comprising the Julia and Lake Additions to Lake County.On December 29, 1987, the Carnahans acquired an additional adjacent 1.2 acres of land; approximately one-eighth of this new acreage included the lake bed.Our calculations suggest that at this point, the Carnahans owned just over half an acre (or 2.5%) of the total 22-acre lake bed.

On December 24, 1991, the current Moriah Property Owner's Association, Inc.("Moriah") obtained the property rights to a majority of the lake bed including nearly all of the water above it suitable for the operation of watercraft.This property is now legally described as Lot 8, Moriah Addition to Lake County.Lot 8 is 15.6 aces, and 14.1 acres constitutes the lake.Our calculations suggest that this 14.1 acres comprises approximately 64% of the 22-acre lake bed.

In April 1992, Moriah prepared restrictive covenants which included rules intended for the safe use of that portion of Lake Julia described as Lot 8.The relevant restrictive covenant relating to the Carnahans' claimed prescriptive easement for the recreational use of watercraft on Lake Julia states as follows: "No motors are allowed on the lake except electric trolling motors powered by no more than two 12-volt batteries."(R. at 78.)In July 1992, the president of Moriah sent documents to the Carnahans including among other things the restrictive covenants for the use of Lot 8.

On May 21, 1993, the Carnahans filed this lawsuit to establish a prescriptive easement for the use of watercraft on Lake Julia and to quiet title in the easement; they also sought a declaratory judgment regarding their rights in relation to Moriah, and sought to enjoin any interference with their real property, easement, and riparian rights.In July 1993, Moriah cross-claimed and counter-claimed alleging that the Carnahans' and another family's use of motorized watercraft on Lake Julia presented a threat to adults and children who swam in the lake.Moriah requested an injunction to prevent the further use of watercraft on Lake Julia.

The trial court ultimately determined that the Carnahans had established a prescriptive easement for the recreational use of motorized watercraft on Lake Julia, but also determined that Moriah could restrict the Carnahans' and others' use of Lake Julia as provided in the restrictive covenants.¹The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court as to finding a prescriptive easement, but reversed as to finding that Moriah could limit the Carnahans' use of Lake Julia with its restrictive covenants.Carnahan v. Moriah Property Owners Ass'n,688 N.E.2d 432(Ind.Ct.App.1997)(unpublished table decision).

Discussion

I

The Carnahans contend that they have a prescriptive easement over an entire body of water.Prior Indiana decisions adjudicating riparian rights in the context of easements almost exclusively concern land access to the water itself or the construction and use of a dock.See, e.g., Klotz v. Horn,558 N.E.2d 1096(Ind.1990);Abbs v. Town of Syracuse,686 N.E.2d 928(Ind.Ct. App.1997)("Abbs II"), transfer denied;Gunderson v. Rondinelli,677 N.E.2d 601(Ind.Ct.App.1997);Fleck v. Hann,658 N.E.2d 125(Ind.Ct.App.1995);Abbs v. Town of Syracuse,655 N.E.2d 114(Ind.Ct. App.1995)("Abbs I"), transfer denied;Metcalf v. Houk,644 N.E.2d 597(Ind.Ct. App.1994);Brown v. Heidersbach,172 Ind.App. 434, 360 N.E.2d 614(1977).These decisions address the riparian rights of lakefront property owners whose land only abuts the water.This case is different and concerns the competing rights of property owners whose real estate is incidentally covered by a relatively small, private lake.Therefore, any decision we make concerning an easement or use right must coincide with our common law as it applies to property underlying an inland, nonnavigable lake.

"A private lake is a body of water on the surface of land within the exclusive dominion and control of the surrounding landowners."Freiburger v. Fry,439 N.E.2d 169, 173(Ind.Ct.App.1982)(citing1915-1916 OP.Ind.Att'y Gen. 703;Patton Park, Inc. v. Pollak,115 Ind.App. 32, 55 N.E.2d 328(1944)).Determinations of riparian rights of inland lakes are based upon whether a lake is navigable or nonnavigable.Berger Farms, Inc. v. Estes,662 N.E.2d 654, 656(Ind.Ct.App.1996)(citingBath v. Courts,459 N.E.2d 72, 75(Ind.Ct.App.1984)).A nonnavigable lake is one "enclosed and bordered by riparian landowners."Id.(citingBath,459 N.E.2d at 75(citing in turnStoner v. Rice,121 Ind. 51, 22 N.E. 968(1889))).

This Court last determined the rights of a lake bed property owner in Sanders v. De Rose,207 Ind. 90, 191 N.E. 331(1934).Sanders owned approximately twenty acres of land covered by a "non-navigable body of fresh water, known as Center Lake."Id. at 90, 191 N.E. at 331.De Rose was a non-property owner who gained access to the lake for fishing via the permission of another riparian owner, whose smaller portion of land both abutted and extended into Center Lake.In reversing the lower court and enjoining De Rose from fishing upon the waters of the lake overlying Sanders's property, this Court emphasized Sanders's rights with respect to other "owners of the bed of such lake."²Id. at 95, 191 N.E. at 333.It then set forth the common law rule as it applies to an inland, nonnavigable lake: "[E]ach owner has the right to the free and unmolested use and control of his portion of the lake bed and water thereon for boating and fishing."Id.

The Court of Appeals recently applied this rule in determining the property rights of competing lake bed owners.SeeTrowbridge v. Torabi,693 N.E.2d 622, 627(Ind.Ct.App.1998)(applying the rule "with equal force to a pond"), transfer denied;Berger Farms,662 N.E.2d at 656(quotingSanders and holding that the majority owner of lake bed property could enjoin a minority lake bed property owner from engaging in recreational activities such as fishing and boating on his majority portion);see alsoPatton Park,115 Ind.App. at 40-41, 55 N.E.2d at 331(citing the "well established"rule of Sanders in determining the riparian rights of lake bed property owners);Millspaugh v. Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co.,104 Ind.App. 540, 548-50, 12 N.E.2d 396, 400-01(1938)(quoting the rule of Sanders and stating that "the exclusive rights of fishing [in private waters] belong to the owners of the soil beneath the waters").This rule has existed for quite some time in Indiana, and we see no reason to abandon it now.SeeNash Eng'g Co. v. Marcy Realty Corp.,222 Ind. 396, 409, 54 N.E.2d 263, 268(1944)(stating that the "maxim [of stare decisis ] is most frequently applied where to disturb [a] prior ruling would probably affect real property and vested rights").With this principle in mind, we proceed to determine the parties' competing property rights to the lake bed and nonnavigable body of water covering it, known as Lake Julia.

II

Prescriptive easements are not favored in the law, see25 Am.Jur.2dEasements and Licenses§ 45, at 615(1996& Supp.1999), and in Indiana, the party claiming one must meet "stringent requirements,"Fleck v. Hann,658 N.E.2d 125, 128(Ind.Ct.App.1995)(reversing lower court decision finding prescriptive easement for use of lakefront pier, because testimony was conflicted as to "adverse" or "permissive" use, thus claimants failed to meet the "stringent requirements that an adverse user must prove to acquire a prescriptive easement").In order to establish the existence of a prescriptive easement, the evidence must show an actual, hostile, open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted adverse use for twenty years under a claim of right.Greenco, Inc. v. May,506 N.E.2d 42, 45(Ind.Ct.App.1987)."Each... element[ ] ... must be established as a necessary, independent, ultimate fact, the burden of showing which is on the party asserting the prescriptive title, and the failure to find any one of such elements [is] fatal ..., for such failure to find is construed as a finding against it."Monarch Real Estate Co. v....