Powell v. Dawson
Decision Date | 22 October 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 2-683A185,2-683A185 |
Parties | Jack M. POWELL and Beverly A. Powell, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. Joseph DAWSON and Lawrence Dawson d/b/a J.S. Dawson Development Co., and City of Carmel, Appellees (Defendants). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David Langolf Smith, William W. Knowles, Raymond L. Faust, Baker, Orbison, Bales & Knowles, Carmel, for appellants.
Campbell, Kyle & Proffitt, Noblesville, Danford R. Due, Stewart, Reeder, Due & Miller, Indianapolis, Gordon D. Byers, Noblesville, for appellees.
Plaintiffs-appellants Jack Powell and Beverly Powell (Powell) appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, Joseph Dawson and Lawrence Dawson (Dawson), and the City of Carmel (City). The issue we address on appeal is whether the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Dawson and City. 1
Judgment affirmed.
Powell's residence is on a lot drained by underground field tile that cross their property and continue underneath a public street and Dawson's property. Dawson disrupted the field tile within Dawson's boundaries in the course of developing a subdivision. When problems developed with standing liquid on Dawson property, the tile was blocked on Dawson's side of the road by employees of Dawson or City. The disruption of the field tile raised the water table under Powell's property, which resulted in problems with their septic system and other damage to the residence.
Powell's complaint asked for damages, a temporary restraining order, and a permanent injunction. The action was terminated by the trial court's grant of Dawson's and City's motions for summary judgment.
The predicate for Powell's argument on appeal is the existence of an easement across Dawson's property for the field tile. Powell asserts such an easement exists by prescriptive right.
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 56(C). Even if facts are not in dispute, summary judgment is inappropriate if conflicting inferences can be drawn from the undisputed facts. The burden is on the moving party to show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact; all doubts and inferences are resolved against the moving party. Whitaker v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 415 N.E.2d 737 (Ind.App.1981).
A fact is material if it facilitates resolution of any of the issues involved in the case. Carrow v. Streeter, 410 N.E.2d 1369 (Ind.App.1980). A factual issue is genuine if it cannot be completely resolved by reference to undisputed facts. American Family Mutual Insurance v. Kivela, 408 N.E.2d 805 (Ind.App.1980). In determining whether a factual issue exists, the court looks to "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits and testimony, if any...." T.R. 56(C).
It is possible, according to Indiana law, to acquire an easement by prescription. Faukboner v. Corder, 127 Ind. 164, 26 N.E. 766 (1891); Riggs v. Riley, 113 Ind. 208, 15 N.E. 253 (1888). Further, it is possible to acquire a drainage easement by prescription. Bell v. Northside Finance Corp., 452 N.E.2d 951 (Ind.1983); Clay v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & L. Ry. Co., 164 Ind. 439, 73 N.E. 904 (1905); Walley v. Wiley, 56 Ind.App. 171, 104 N.E. 318 (1914).
A prescriptive easement is established by actual, open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse use for twenty years 2 under claim of right, or by continuous adverse use with knowledge and acquiescence of the servient owner. Bulatovich v. Easton, 435 N.E.2d 997 (Ind.App.1982); Dolph v. Mangus, 400 N.E.2d 189 (Ind.App.1980); Jeffers v. Toschlog, 178 Ind.App. 603, 383 N.E.2d 457 (1978).
Here, because the alleged drainage easement is not apparent above the surface of the ground, we focus on the requirement that the use be "open". 3 Numerous opinions discuss the problem of sub-surface easements; we elaborate upon two that are both representative of the larger group and also analogous to the instant case. 4
In sum, in order to put the existence of a prescriptive easement in issue, there must be some showing the servient tenant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, of the existence of the alleged easement.
Generally, the existence of an easement is a question of fact. Searcy, 372 N.E.2d 755. Powell argues they acquired a prescriptive drainage easement across Dawson's property. We disagree. However, it is undisputed neither Dawson, their predecessor, nor Powell, were aware of the existence of the field tiles that drained Powell's property until the subdivision's construction; consequently, there is not a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the easement arose by prescription, and, as a matter of law, it did not.
Judgment affirmed.
1 Because we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the other issue raised, whether the trial court erred in sustaining Dawson's objection to Powell's request for a jury trial, is moot.
2 Ind.Code Ann. Sec. 32-5-1-1 (Burns 1980) provides the prescriptive use must continue for twenty years.
3 Once open and continuous use of another's land commences with knowledge on the part of the servient owner, a rebuttable presumption arises that such use...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ludwig v. Ford Motor Co.
... ... Moll. Initially, the burden lies with the movant to establish that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Powell ... Page 696 ... v. Dawson (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1179, 1181; Adams v. Luros (1980), Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 1199, 1203. However, in a ... ...
-
Shields v. Taylor
...809 N.E.2d 444, 450 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied; Greenco, Inc. v. May, 506 N.E.2d 42, 45 (Ind.Ct.App.1987); Powell v. Dawson, 469 N.E.2d 1179, 1181 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), reh'g denied ). “It is the general rule that where there has been the use of an easement for twenty (20) years which is......
-
Hafner v. Hansen, Record No. 090972.
...servient estate owner lacked knowledge of private sewer line and property deeds failed to reveal line's presence); Powell v. Dawson, 469 N.E.2d 1179, 1182 (Ind.App.1984) (to prove prescriptive easement when use of underground drainage pipe not open to observation, claimant must show that se......
-
Bauer v. Harris
...under a claim of right, or by continuous adverse use with the knowledge and acquiescence of the servient owner. Powell v. Dawson (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1179, 1181; IND.CODE Sec. 32-5-1-1. Continuity of use for the requisite twenty-year period may be established by tacking from the use......