COA affirms for neighbors in Allen County easement dispute

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the grant of summary judgment to a couple in an easement dispute with their neighbors, finding the doctrine of res judicata did not help the latter.

Neighbors Jason and Kelli Brimner and Bradley and Laurie Binz both own plots of land that border one another in Allen County. The former owners of both properties gave the Brimners the right to extensively landscape their ingress-egress easement through the Binzes property in order to access the public roadway.

Over time, however, the Brimners landscaped and made other improvements to the easement that prompted the Binzes to sue. The latter specifically contended that the easement instrument, with its landscaping rights, was unenforceable because the Binzes had not been put on notice of it prior to purchasing their property. The easement instrument at issue was never recorded prior to the sale of the touching properties.

After the Brimners countersued, all parties settled and stipulated to the dismissal of the Binzes’ amended complaint with prejudice. The Brimners’ counterclaim, however, was specifically excluded from the stipulation of dismissal.

When the Binzes moved for summary judgment on the Brimners’ counterclaim, alleging they could not be liable for damage to improvements to the easement because the easement instrument was unenforceable, the Allen Superior Court entered summary judgment on the basis that is was not enforceable. The trial court rejected the Brimners’ argument that the settlement of the Binzes’ amended complaint foreclosed further litigation of the enforceability of the easement instrument.

On appeal, the Brimners argued the trial court erred in failing to conclude that the stipulated dismissal of the Binzes’ amended complaint was res judicata as to the Brimners’ counterclaim. But the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Friday in Jason Brimner and Kelli Brimner v. Bradley Binz and Laurie Binz, 19A-PL-3021.

First, the appellate agreed with the Binzes that there was no final judgment on the merits because only the amended complaint was dismissed, leaving the Brimners’ counterclaim for future determination.

“As mentioned, while the Binzes’ amended complaint was dismissed by stipulation, the Brimners’ counterclaim was explicitly excluded from that stipulation, leaving to be resolved the claim that the Binzes had unlawfully damaged the improvements the Brimners made to the easement,” Chief Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the appellate panel. “Moreover, the trial court did not expressly make, in writing, an entry of judgment or determine that there was no just reason for delay. Consequently, there was no final judgment on the merits, a foundational requirement of claim preclusion.”

Next, the COA panel found that because the Binzes’ amended complaint was dismissed by stipulation, the issue of the enforceability of the easement instrument was not actually litigated and decided.

“Consequently, issue preclusion does not apply to bar its consideration as raised in the Brimners’ counterclaim,” the panel concluded. “… The Brimners have failed to establish that either branch of the doctrine of res judicata helps them in this case.”