Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA subdivision developer could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals to lift an injunction preventing it from using an access road it built through another neighborhood for construction purposes.
In the process of developing a new residential subdivision in Monroe County, Centennial Park LLC purchased a vacant lot in a nearby neighborhood to use as a construction and access road for its own property. The vacant lot – located on the Highland Park subdivision’s north border– was deemed more desirable for its easier access to State Road 46 compared to the available roadway access to the east.
Upon Centennial’s request, the town of Ellettsville annexed the Highland Park lot, while Centennial granted Ellettsville a roadway easement through it and installed a construction road on the lot. But Centennial hit a roadblock when a Highland Park restrictive covenant stopped its progress.
Specifically, the neighborhood’s covenant prevented property owners from doing “anything on any lot which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.” Highland Park and one of its residents eventually sued Centennial and secured an injunction from the Monroe Circuit Court preventing Centennial from using the lot as a public right-of-way or construction road.
The resident, Debra Hackman, owns a home adjacent to Centennial’s purchased lot in Highland Park. She asserted that the installation of the construction road knocked down her mailbox three times, while the construction traffic blocked access to her driveway, damaged her cul de sac and spread mud over the roadway.
Meanwhile, Centennial successfully petitioned the Ellettsville Plan Commission to vacate the covenant, of which Highland Park unsuccessfully sought judicial review. However, the trial court still rejected Centennial’s motion for relief from the injunction.
The Indiana Court of Appeals declined to accept Centennial’s abuse of discretion arguments on appeal, when the developer argued that the vacation of the covenant left the trial court with no valid basis to enjoin the use of the easement over the Highland Park lot.
“In the end, Centennial Park has always been obligated to not use (the lot) in such a way that causes a nuisance, and the vacation of Covenant G did nothing to change that,” Chief Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the appellate court on Tuesday. The panel therefore concluded the record was sufficient to sustain a conclusion that the access road’s construction and future existence would constitute a private nuisance per accidens independent of the covenant.
Next, the appellate panel concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(7) did not entitle Centennial Park to relief from its previous judgment. Likewise, Centennial Park failed to establish that it was entitled to relief pursuant to subsection (B)(8).
“At the very least, because we have concluded that the trial court’s injunction can be justified on a basis independent of Covenant G, the vacation of Covenant G in another proceeding does not provide Centennial Park with a meritorious claim that the injunction should be lifted,” Bradford wrote.
“To summarize, because the record supports a conclusion that the access road would be a nuisance with or without Covenant G, Centennial Park has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for relief from judgment.”
The case is Centennial Park, LLC v. Highland Park Estates, LLC, 20A-PL-467.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.