A recent ruling from the Indiana Court of Appeals sheds light on a property dispute between neighbors over the use of a gravel road. The case, *GSE Realty LLC, Gordon D. Emmert and Stacey I. Emmert v. Leslie R. Miller*, involves a disagreement over a private road called Lazy Lane, located in a subdivision near Raccoon Lake. The court ultimately affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The Heart of the Matter: The Gravel Road
The core of the dispute revolves around the location and use of Lazy Lane. The original plat of the subdivision, dating back to the 1960s, designated Lazy Lane as a 30-foot-wide private road. However, the road was constructed in the wrong location, and its current position doesn’t align with the original plat. Part of the road sits on the property of GSE Realty, LLC (owned by Gordon and Stacey Emmert), while a portion of Leslie Miller’s house and a pole barn are located where the platted road should be.
Miller’s Claim: A Prescriptive Easement
Miller sought a prescriptive easement, a legal right to use a portion of the Emmerts’ property for the road. A prescriptive easement is essentially obtained by using someone else’s property openly, continuously, and without permission for a period of at least twenty years.
The Court’s Decision: A Mixed Bag
The Court of Appeals addressed two main issues: whether the trial court correctly granted Miller a prescriptive easement and whether the injunction issued by the trial court described the easement with enough detail.
I. Prescriptive Easement: The Court’s Analysis
The court examined the requirements for establishing a prescriptive easement, which, under Indiana law, requires a showing of “control, intent, notice, and duration.”
The court found that Miller had presented enough evidence to support the grant of a prescriptive easement, except for one specific part.
* Parking on the Platted Lazy Lane: The court noted that the Emmerts appeared to have waived the issue of parking on the platted road because they had not made this argument at trial.
* Parking on the Gravel Driveway: The trial court had granted Miller a prescriptive easement for parking and using the gravel driveway, which included part of the Emmerts’ property. The appellate court found there was no evidence of historical, continuous parking by Miller on the Gravel Driveway beyond a certain point, labeled as Point A on a survey exhibit. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of a prescriptive easement related to parking beyond that point.
* Use of Gravel Driveway on Emmerts’ Property: The Emmerts argued that Miller did not provide enough evidence of continuous use of the Gravel Driveway. The court disagreed, citing testimony that the location of Lazy Lane had remained unchanged since the 1960s.
* Adverse Use: The Emmerts also argued that Miller’s use was not “adverse,” meaning it was not without the owner’s permission. The court found that Miller and his predecessors had never sought or received permission to use the road, build structures, or park on the property, and thus the use was adverse.
II. The Injunction: Awaiting Revision
The second issue addressed by the court was whether the permanent injunction was specific enough. The Emmerts argued that the injunction, which restricts their actions regarding the road, did not provide enough detail about the width of the easement.
Because the court reversed part of the trial court’s decision regarding the prescriptive easement, it decided not to address the injunction argument at this time. The trial court would need to revise the description of the easement on remand, and the issues raised by the Emmerts could be considered then.
The Outcome: Partial Victory, Partial Setback
The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of a prescriptive easement in part, finding that Miller had established the necessary elements for most of the road’s use. However, the court reversed the grant related to parking on the Gravel Driveway beyond a specific point. The case was sent back to the trial court to revise the order and the description of the prescriptive easement. This ruling provides some clarity for the neighbors but leaves some details to be worked out in further proceedings.