McConnell v. Satterfield, 11A01-9011-CV-456
| Decision Date | 22 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 11A01-9011-CV-456,11A01-9011-CV-456 |
| Citation | 576 N.E.2d 1300 |
| Parties | Roger McCONNELL and Susan McConnell, Appellants-Counterclaimants, v. Margaret SATTERFIELD, Appellee-Counterdefendant. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Gary G. Hanner, Hanner Hanner & Hanner, Rockville, for appellants-counterclaimants.
Stephen S. Pierson, Indianapolis, for appellee-counterdefendant.
Roger and Susan McConnell appeal the denial of their counterclaim against Margaret Satterfield. We affirm.
The sole issue raised by the McConnells is whether the trial court erred in denying their counterclaim, finding that the McConnells do not have a reasonable way of necessity or an implied easement to a portion of their land?
Satterfield raises the issue of whether she should be awarded damages and attorney's fees for defending a frivolous and vexatious appeal.
Satterfield owns real estate adjacent to property owned by the McConnells. Satterfield's property is referred to as Lot A, and the McConnells's lot is Lot B. In 1974, both Lot A and B were owned jointly by Margaret and William Satterfield, Margaret's former husband. In 1986, when the Satterfields divorced, Margaret received the property. A driveway had been installed in 1966 between Lots A and B. A garage also was constructed on the northern portion of Lot B in 1972. The driveway led to a parking area next to the garage. However, the Satterfields used the garage only for storage. After foreclosure on Lot B, the McConnells bought Lot B at a sheriff's sale in 1989. The McConnells were aware that the driveway was located on Lot A and that no easement had been granted allowing Lot B to use the driveway. The McConnells used the driveway to get to their garage despite Satterfield's objections. On July 2, 1989, Satterfield erected a split rail fence on Lot A along the driveway to preclude use of the driveway by the McConnells. The McConnells dismantled the fence and continued to use the driveway.
Satterfield filed suit for ejectment, quiet title, and damages. The McConnells counterclaimed alleging an implied easement by necessity. The trial court entered judgment quieting title in favor of Satterfield, enjoining use of the driveway by the McConnells, finding damages to the fence in the amount of $562.43, and also awarding $100 nominal damages for trespass. The court held against the McConnells on their counterclaim, finding no implied easement by necessity to use the driveway. The McConnells appeal the denial of their counterclaim.
The McConnells contend that the trial court erred in not finding an implied easement by necessity. The McConnells must establish that the judgment is contrary to law since they are appealing a negative judgment on their counterclaim. See In re Marriage of Wooten (1990), Ind.App., 563 N.E.2d 636, 638. We will reverse only if the evidence is without conflict and leads to a conclusion opposite that of the trial court. We consider only the evidence on the record most favorable to the prevailing party without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id.
Generally, an easement will be implied where during the unity of title, an owner imposed an apparently permanent and obvious servitude on one part of the land in favor of another part, and the servitude was in use when the parts were severed, if the servitude is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the part benefited. Fischer v. Revett (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 995, 996-97, trans. denied. The requirement of reasonable necessity does not do away with the requirement that some necessity be shown. Id. at 998. In Fischer, the court found that where a loop of a driveway was not necessary for ingress or egress but was more convenient, no easement was implied. Id. Similarly, Satterfield's driveway is not necessary for ingress or egress on McConnells's property. The McConnells admit that they are not landlocked and that they have means of access to their lot from the southern side which fronts on a public highway. The McConnells acknowledge that Indiana has not granted a way of necessity when only a portion of the land is inaccessible. However, the McConnells invite us to extend the rule granting implied easements to situations where only a portion of the land is inaccessible as they contend it is a natural progression of Indiana law.
The McConnells claim that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. Meredith, 2000-CA-002289-MR.
...307 Ky. 719, 211 S.W.2d 816 (1948). 21. See, e.g., Phillippi v. Knotter, 2000 Pa.Super. 71, 748 A.2d 757 (2000); McConnell v. Satterfield, 576 N.E.2d 1300 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991); Canei v. Colley, 179 W.Va. 797, 374 S.E.2d 523 (1988); Burling v. Leiter, 272 Mich. 448, 262 N.W. 388 (1935); Gowan ......
-
Stansbury v. Mdr
...will not be found in favor of property that has a way of ingress and egress apart from the easement."); McConnell v. Satterfield, 576 N.E.2d 1300, 1302 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) ("The [appellants] admit that they are not landlocked and that they have means of access to their lot from the southern s......
-
Gosney v. Glenn
...or has direct access to a public road. Id. (citing Phillippi v. Knotter, 2000 Pa.Super. 71, 748 A.2d 757 (2000); McConnell v. Satterfield, 576 N.E.2d 1300 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); Canei v. Culley, 179 W.Va. 797, 374 S.E.2d 523 (1988); Burling v. Leiter, 272 Mich. 448, 262 N.W. 388 (1935); Gowan v......
-
The William C. Haak Trust v. Wilusz
...had the burden of proving its right to an easement of necessity, it is appealing a negative judgment. See McConnell v. Satterfield, 576 N.E.2d 1300, 1301 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). On appeal, the Trust must demonstrate that the trial court's judgment is contrary to law. Id. The underlying facts are......