Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Court of Appeals of Indiana has reversed judgment for a real estate developer in a dispute with a Bloomington business, finding that the developer obstructed the business’s easement during a construction project.
The case dates back roughly a decade, when The Foundry at 304, Foundry WPR Orrego and Foundry WPR Elmore began work on a multifamily and commercial real estate project on West Kirkwood Avenue in Bloomington. The project was to sit directly east of Framemakers, a picture frame retail business.
In 2017, a large crane was placed in the area of an easement, blocking access between Sixth Street and Framemakers’ property. The easement was continuously occupied from 2017 to 2019, but Foundry never placed any signage or issued any instructions to protect Framemakers’ rights to the easement.
Thus, in April 2020, Framemakers sued Foundry for an injunction to protect its easement rights. Framemakers ultimately did not pursue injunctive relief, but the case proceeded to a bench trial on the issues of interference, trespass and damages.
The Monroe Circuit Court ruled for Foundry in June 2023, finding Foundry’s contractor, not Foundry itself, was responsible for obstruction of and interference with the easement.
But the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, with Judge Patricia Riley writing, “The trial court conflated the property law principles at play in the Easement rights determination between Framemakers and the Foundry with the negligence principles between the Foundry, as owner of the Project, and Onyx, its contractor. Onyx is not a party to the Easement, and Framemakers is not a party to the construction contract entered into between the Foundry and Onyx.
“This case involves a written easement document where Framemakers has asserted that the servient estate owner interfered with and obstructed Framemakers’ enjoyment of its rights under the easement,” Riley wrote. “The Easement was entered into between Framemakers and the Foundry, and the Foundry is liable for violating Framemakers’ rights under the Easement.”
On cross-appeal, Foundry argued that the trial court erred in interpreting the easement — specifically, the language providing that “there shall be no unobstructed use [of the Easement] for ingress and egress from Fifth Street to Sixth Street” “during any construction on the premises … .”
“If the Easement was truly meant to give Framemakers unobstructed access during the construction on Foundry’s property, the Foundry contends that the Easement should have read, ‘there shall be unobstructed use for ingress and egress … during any construction.’ We disagree,” Riley wrote.
“… Accepting the Foundry’s interpretation would render all the preceding language of the Easement meaningless in favor of the puzzlingly placed word ‘no,’” she continued. “We find that the Easement’s unambiguous language demonstrates that Framemakers would enjoy unobstructed access, even when the Foundry had ongoing construction on the premises.”
The case — Frame Station, Inc. d/b/a Framemakers v. The Foundry at 304, LLC, Foundry WPR Orrego, LLC and Foundry WPR Elmore, LLC, 23A-CT-1426 — was remanded for further proceedings, including the determination of damages, if any.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.