Collins v. Metro Real Estate Servs. LLC, Court of Appeals Case No. 88A05-1510-PL-1797
Citation | 72 N.E.3d 1007 |
Decision Date | 18 April 2017 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 88A05-1510-PL-1797 |
Parties | Luther T. COLLINS, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. METRO REAL ESTATE SERVICES LLC, Appellee-Defendant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Attorney for Appellant : Mark D. Johnson, Allen & Johnson, LLC, Salem, Indiana
Attorney for Appellee : Robert R. Thomas, Thomas Law Group, LLC, Zionsville, Indiana
[1] Luther Collins challenges the trial court's order finding an easement exists across Collins's property for the benefit of adjacent property owned by Metro Real
Estate Services, LLC ("Metro"). We affirm.
[2] Collins raises five issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as:
[3] This appeal concerns two parcels of land in Washington County. On October 24, 2003, Joseph Howell acquired the real estate identified on the tax map as parcel 7.05 ("the servient estate") from George Sivak, Regina Sivak, and Fred Cambron. See Appellant's App. p. 54. On November 3, 2003, Howell acquired the adjacent real estate identified on the tax map as parcel 2.02 ("the dominant estate") from Patrick Alexander and Connie Alexander. Id.
[4] At the time Howell purchased the [dominant estate], Howell's only access from a public right of way to the [dominant estate] was over the [servient estate] already owned by Howell. The [dominant estate] had no other access to a public right of way but for over the [servient estate] to Mount Carmel Road.
Joint Stipulated Statement of Evidence p. 3. Howell lived on the servient estate and allowed a neighbor to cut hay on the dominant estate; the neighbor owned property adjacent to the dominant estate and accessed the dominant estate from his own land, not by way of the servient estate.
[5] Some time later, the servient estate was the subject of a foreclosure action, and Collins purchased it at a sheriff's sale; Collins closed on the property on March 27, 2009.2 Prior to the sheriff's sale of the servient estate, Howell mortgaged the dominant estate to Old Capitol Mortgage. In order to "facilitate" the Old Capitol mortgage, Howell "granted an Easement to himself over the [servient estate] to allow access to the [dominant estate]." Id.
Howell recorded the easement on June 23, 2008. The Old Capitol mortgage was recorded on July 23, 2008. "Collins testified that neither Howell nor anyone else used the Easement area to access the [dominant estate] and both ends of the Easement area were fenced with no gate."3 Id. Collins also testified that, "Howell accessed the [dominant estate] on and across the [servient estate] after Collins purchased the [servient estate] and at no time did Collins object to Howell doing so." Id. at 4.
[6] The dominant estate was also the subject of a foreclosure action, and, on May 11, 2012, Metro purchased it. Collins objected to Metro's use of the easement over the servient estate and, in January 2014, filed a complaint to quiet title. The matter was tried, and the trial court entered its judgment for Metro on July 31, 2015. Collins then filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied on September 24, 2015. Collins now appeals.4
[7] We review the denial of a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion. Otter Creek Trading Co., Inc. v. PCM Enviro PTY, LTD , 60 N.E.3d 217, 226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied .
A trial court has abused its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable inferences therefrom. The trial court's decision comes to us cloaked in a presumption of correctness, and the appellant has the burden of proving that the trial court abused its discretion. In making our determination, we may neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Instead, we look at the record to determine if: (a) the trial court abused its judicial discretion; (b) a flagrant injustice has been done to the appellant; or (c) a very strong case for relief from the trial court's order has been made by the appellant.
Id. (citation omitted) (quotations omitted).
[8] Where, as here, the trial court issues findings of fact and conclusions thereon sua sponte, 5 Samples v. Wilson , 12 N.E.3d 946, 949-50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We apply a two-tier standard of review to the sua sponte findings and conclusions thereon.
Id. at 950. We first determine whether the evidence supports the findings and then whether the findings support the judgment. Id. We will set aside findings and conclusions:
[9] The trial court's July 31, 2015, order states:
[10] The trial court's September 24, 2015, order denying Collins's motion to correct error states:
[11] Collins argues that the trial court abused its discretion by determining that an easement exists over his property. In Indiana, an easement can be created in three ways: by grant, prescription, or implication. William C. Haak Trust v. Wilusz , 949 N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). There are two types of easements. "[A]n easement is appurtenant if it passes (by conveyance or inheritance) with the dominant tenement[.]" Id. "[A]n easement is in gross if it is personal to the owner of the dominant tenement." Id. "An easement is never presumed to be in gross when it can be fairly construed to be appurtenant to the land." Id. (quotations omitted) (citation omitted). In this case, the parties dispute whether Metro has an easement either by grant or by implication over Collins's property.6
[12] Collins first contends no easement over his property exists for the benefit of Metro because Howell's attempt to grant himself an easement was unsuccessful. Collins argues that the doctrine of merger extinguished the easement and directs us to cases that cite the general proposition that one cannot grant himself or herself an easement in land to which he or she has title. See William C. Haak Trust , 949 N.E.2d at 837 n.1 (quoting John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Patterson , 2 N.E. 188, 190, 103 Ind. 582, 586 (1885) ); Borovilos Restaurant Corp. II v. Lutheran Univ. Ass'n, Inc. , 920 N.E.2d 759, 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) ( )(citation omitted), trans. denied ; Patterson , 2 N.E. at 190, 103 Ind. at 586 () .
[13] In its order denying Collins's motion to correct error, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haggard v. State
...and one may not simultaneously hold title to and an easement in the same piece of property. Collins v. Metro Real Estate Servs. LLC , 72 N.E.3d 1007, 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Thus, the Haggards are not landowners with title to the property sought to be condemned and were not entitled to a......
-
Morehouse v. Dux N. LLC
...designated evidence that shows that the access road was definitively "in use" at that time. See Collins v. Metro Real Estate Servs. LLC , 72 N.E.3d 1007, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding evidence insufficient to prove easement by prior use "[w]ithout more specific evidence regarding the u......
-
Cain v. Huff
...rights needed to access any portion of the Huff Real Estate for those same purposes. See Collins v. Metro Real Estate Servs. LLC , 72 N.E.3d 1007, 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (" ‘During the unity of title the owner may subject one of several tenements, or adjoining parcels of land, to such ar......
-
Morehouse v. Dux N. LLC
...designated evidence that shows that the access road was definitively "in use" at that time. See Collins v. Metro Real Estate Servs. LLC, 72 N.E.3d 1007, 1016 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017) (holding evidence insufficient to prove easement by prior use "[w]ithout more specific evidence regarding the use ......