Easement allows surrounding properties access, COA rules

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order determining that a mulch business could have access to an easement owned by a neighboring property, finding that the easement was for the benefit of all surrounding properties.

Craig and Marcia Newforth own nearly 20 acres within Franklin Industrial Park, a plot of land that holds several other properties, including a five-acre parcel owned by Jason Bault. In addition to the properties owned by the Newforths and Bault, Franklin Industrial Park contains a 0.88-acre easement area owned by the Newforths that runs along the southern boundary of the Bault property, connecting it to a state road for the benefit of the Newforths’ property and the adjacent parcels abutting the easement.

When Bault approached the Newforths about installing two drives over a part of the easement area in order to connect his property to the access road for his mulching business, the Newforths objected. Bault then filed a complaint in September 2016 seeking declaratory relief and an injunction against the Newforths, alleging that gaining access to the access road for semi-trailer tractors was reasonable and necessary for his business.

After a trial court conducted a site visit and reviewed the extensive evidence submitted by Bault, it found Bault’s rights under the easement included the right to utilize the entire easement and access road for vehicular access to and from his property. It also found he had the right to install two 100-foot-wide access areas, a drainage culvert under each access area and the right to utilize the easement, among other things.

The trial court additionally found the terms of the easement to be clear and unambiguous, permitting Bault to install his access areas, and that it was reasonably foreseeable at the time the easement was created that it would be utilized by semi-tractor trailers and heavy equipment vehicles.

The Newforths asserted on appeal that the extension of the right to use the easement for access to property not identified as the benefited property or dominant estate of the easement was an improper extension of the easement that overburdened it. They also argued that Bault provided no explanation as to why the two drives would allow greater utilization of his land than one drive.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found that the easement does not benefit the Newforth property alone, however, noting that when the Newforths acquired their property, the deed expressly stated that the easement was subject “for the benefit of the 19.55 acre tract and the adjacent parcels abutting the easement.”

Thus, the appellate court affirmed the extent of the easement based on Bault’s extensively presented evidence supporting the trial court’s findings regarding Franklin Industrial Park and the impact of Bault’s proposed drives.

“There is no question that the Easement was intended to benefit the Bault Property and that, as the Easement Area and the Bault Property share a boundary, Bault’s proposed drives are situated within the Easement Area and do not extend onto any property of the Newforths not subject to the Easement,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the panel in Craig Newforth and Marcia Newforth v. Jason Bault, 60A05-1712-PL-2969.