Mattingly v. Smith
| Decision Date | 18 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 55A05–1203–PL–142.,55A05–1203–PL–142. |
| Citation | 984 N.E.2d 258 |
| Parties | Jerome Scott MATTINGLY, Appellant–Defendant/Counter–Claimant and Third–Party Plaintiff, v. Jaun William SMITH and Julie Ann Smith, Appellees–Plaintiffs, Counter–Defendants, and Sharon O'Connell, Appellee–Plaintiff, and Daniel E. Richards, Vernuse Mings and Meredith Mings, Glen H. MacPhee and Carol S. MacPhee, Howard P. Owen and Debra L. Owen, John Knox and Jill Knox, Jerry Stokes and Christina Stokes, Jacqueline A. May, and Paul E. Dombrosky and Sheila A. Dombrosky, Appellees/Third–Party Defendants. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Morgan Circuit Court; The Honorable Matthew G. Hanson, Judge; Cause No. 55C01–1009–PL–893.
Michael L. Carmin, Gregory A. Bullman, Andrews Harrell Mann Carmin & Parker, P.C., Bloomington, IN, Attorneys for Appellants/Cross–Appellees.
Carl A. Hayes, Scott R. Leisz, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys For Appellees/Cross–Appellants.
Jerome Scott Mattingly (“Mattingly”) appeals from the trial court's order at the conclusion of a bench trial in a land dispute between Mattingly and several of his neighbors in Morgan County. Jaun William Smith (“Jaun”) and Julie Ann Smith (“Julie”) (collectively “the Smiths”) cross-appeal 1 from the trial court's order. Of the issues presented for our review in this appeal and cross-appeal, we consider the following issue: whether the trial court erred by concluding that a plat of survey unambiguously created an express easement, thereby precluding consideration of extrinsic evidence and that the existence of that easement excused Mattingly's actions.
We affirm.
In November 1983, Donald Richards requested a plat of survey (“1983 Plat”) of land he owned with his wife, Elizabeth, in Morgan County to be generated depicting six tracts of land totaling roughly 56.68 acres and an access and utility easement for that acreage that was fifty-feet wide. Those tracts of land later became known as Sundown Acres, a small neighborhood in rural Morgan County. Ecohomes, Incorporated (“Ecohomes”) acquired land from Donald and Elizabeth Richards as is represented in a warranty deed dated October 11, 1985. That warranty deed, signed by both Donald and Elizabeth Richards, expressly sets out the existence of a 50–foot roadway and utility easement. Def.'s Ex. B.
The first five tracts of land were sold in their entirety to different purchasers. The Smiths purchased their property known as Tract 6 in 1985 from Ecohomes. Although the land was platted as a 7 .0–acre parcel, as a means of reducing their overall costs, the Smiths only purchased a 5.263–acre parcel. The Smiths' property was accessed by way of a one-lane gravel drive that terminated in a cul-de-sac at the northern edge of the property. They built their home on the property in 1987 and began living there. The deed conveyed to the Smiths 5.263 acres subject to a 50–foot wide roadway and utility easement, and was signed by the president of Ecohomes.
To the west of the Smiths' property and immediately west of the 50–foot roadway and utility easement, O'Connell and Richard and Jeannine Metz (“the Metzes”) own property that is not described or identified as any of the six tracts in the 1983 Plat. O'Connell and the Metzes use the 50–foot roadway and utility easement to gain access to their property. Although the O'Connell deed is not in the record, the Metzes' deed shows that they had the express right to ingress and egress via the 50–foot easement.
Mattingly had owned property in the general area near Sundown Acres since 1986. In 2006, he acquired land to the south of the Smiths' property from Karl J. Walther, the secretary-treasurer of Ecohomes. Mattingly conducted his own research at the Morgan County Recorder's Office and believed that his acquisition included what had been the southern-most 1.737 acres of Tract 6, the original 7.0–acre tract of which the Smiths had purchased roughly 5.25 acres. An attachment to Mattingly's deed stated that his property contained 37.716 acres, exclusive of the exceptions, more or less. Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 shows the Mattingly property as consisting of 20.15 acres and 17.56 acres to the south of Sundown Acres, or 37.71 acres total.
The 1983 Plat states that the 50–foot access and utility easement is for the above 56.68 acres, or Tracts 1–6 constituting Sundown Acres. More specifically, the 1983 Plat provides as follows:
This plat consists of six tracts numbered 1 through 6 inclusively. The tracts and easements are shown in figures, denoting feet and decimal parts thereof.
Access and Utility Easement for the above 56.68 acres.
Pls.' Ex. 2; Appellants' App. at 181. The 1983 Plat depicts the access and utility easement as 50 feet in width extending to the southern-most part of Tract 6. The Smiths' warranty deed from Ecohomes described the real estate they purchased and provided in pertinent as follows:
....containing 5.263 acres more or less and subject to a roadway and utility easement of 50 feet of even width off of the entire West side of the tract ... Subject to all easements and restrictions of record.
Def.'s Ex. C.2
Mattingly believed that he had acquired the right to use the 50–foot easement to access his 37.716–acre parcel by virtue of having purchased the remainder of Tract 6. Over the course of four years, Mattingly made several offers to the Smiths and other residents of Sundown Acres to sell to them his interest in the remainder of Tract 6. His offers were refused, however, because the Smiths and the other residents did not believe that Mattingly had an interest in the remainder of Tract 6.
At some point in 2008, Jaun returned home from work to find Mattingly operating a bulldozer near the property line between the Smiths' property and Mattingly's adjacent property. Jaun confronted Mattingly and told him not to enter onto the Smiths' property. Jaun stated that if Mattingly did so they would sue him for repairs regarding any damage done to the property. The next day, the Smiths posted a “No Trespassing” sign on the property line.
On August 30, 2010, Mattingly discarded the “No Trespassing” sign and entered the Smiths' property without permission. Although Jaun was away at work, O'Connell and Julie observed Mattingly bring a tractor with a bush-hog attachment and two chainsaws onto the Smiths' property. While on the Smiths' property Mattingly cleared a path approximately 200 feet long and 30 feet wide through a portion of the western-most part of the Smiths' property and connected the path to the cul-de-sac. Ultimately, Jaun was notified of Mattingly's actions, called police officers, and drove home. Mattingly was not on the Smiths' property at the time police officers arrived and Jaun had come home. Mattingly had also entered upon O'Connell's property and had cleared a path approximately 90–feet long and 15–feet wide. In clearing the paths, Mattingly cut and removed trees, saplings, and underbrush from the two properties.
The Smiths filed a complaint for injunctive relief and damages on September 13, 2010 against Mattingly. The Smiths alleged a dispute between the neighbors over the scope of Mattingly's right, if any, to use or alter the 50–foot easement. They further alleged that Mattingly had trespassed upon the Smiths' real estate and had interfered with the Smiths' use and enjoyment of the their property by cutting down and removing trees. In their prayer for injunctive relief, the Smiths argued that Mattingly would suffer no harm from the issuance of the injunction because Mattingly had no legal right to use the access road easement.
Martingly filed an answer and counterclaim against the Smiths, and filed a third-party complaint against Daniel E. Richards, Vernuse and Meredith Mings, Glen H. and Carol S. MacPhee, Howard P. and Debra L. Owen, John and Jill Knox, Jerry and Christina Stokes, Jacqueline A. May, and Paul E. and Sheila A. Dombrosky. Martingly acknowledged that there was a dispute regarding the scope and rights of the easement and asked for a declaratory judgment that two connecting easements encumbered real estate owned by the counterclaim defendants and third-party defendants and that those easements were appurtenant to the Martingly property for ingress, egress, and utility service. Martingly denied the Smiths' allegations of trespass, conversion and damages.
Third-party defendants Glen and Carol MacPhee and Daniel E. Richards filed disclaimers of interest with the trial court. The trial court dismissed the case as to those third-party defendants. Third-party defendants, Vernuse and Meredith Mings (collectively, the Mingses), filed an answer to the third-party complaint requesting that the trial court find that the easement granted to the Martingly property be restricted for use to access by one property owner. The Smiths and third-party defendants Howard P. and Debra Owen, John and Jill Knox, Jerry and Christina Stokes, Jacqueline May, and Paul and Sheila Dombrosky filed their reply to the counterclaim and answer to the third-party complaint admitting that a dispute existed regarding Martingly's use of the 50–foot easement and requesting that the trial court declare that Martingly not be allowed to use the easement for ingress and egress.
The Smiths filed a first amended complaint adding O'Connell as a plaintiff. O'Connell alleged that Martingly had trespassed on her real estate and had performed acts which interfered with her use and enjoyment of her property. O'Connell and the Smiths alleged conversion against Mattingly, claiming that he had exerted unauthorized control over their property by cutting down and removing trees. O'Connell and the Smiths requested injunctive relief and asserted that injunctive relief would not harm Mattingly. Mattingly filed an answer to the first amended complaint denying the allegations.
Counsel for the Mingses filed a motion to withdraw appearance...
To continue reading
Request your trial