• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Contact Us (317) 692-9000

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Directions

Kroger Gardis Regas, LLP

Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP

  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Firm
    • About Us
    • History
    • KGR in Our Community
    • TAGLaw®
  • Professionals
  • Practice Areas
  • Information
    • Blog
    • Doing Business in Indiana: A Reference Guide
    • Representing Buyers and Sellers in Acquisitions of Privately Held Companies
    • Receiverships & Class Actions
  • Legal Lessons
    • Courses
    • Login
    • Account
  • News
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Search
You are here: Home / News / Real Estate Property Rights: An Easement Holder May Not Sue for Trespass

Real Estate Property Rights: An Easement Holder May Not Sue for Trespass

February 3, 2017 //  by Steve Runyan

An easement holder, such as a public utility, cannot sue to physically remove a “trespasser” from the easement. That’s what the Indiana Court of Appeals recently decided. 1 Without standing to sue for trespass, the easement holder can stop the adverse party from using the property only if the adverse use injures the easement holder’s own use of the property, and that injury outweighs the reasonable necessity of the adverse party’s use of the property. This case pitted a municipality against a utility, but the same principles could just as easily be applied to any individual or entity with a nonpossessory interest in land, such as an easement, license, equitable servitude restrict covenant, or profit. Duke Energy held a utility easement in an area where the City of Franklin proposed to put an intersection. Duke claimed, among other things, that the City did not have any property rights in the intersection, and therefore the City was nothing more than a trespasser and should be barred from constructing the intersection. As the Court of Appeals held, “Duke is essentially pursuing an ejectment action based on alleged trespass.” The City claimed it did have interests in the property (obtained alternatively through a Road Transfer Memorandum of Agreement, dedication, the doctrine of public usage, or prescriptive easement/adverse possession). The City argued that an easement holder cannot pursue a trespass claim or seek an ejectment and therefore even if the City did not have property rights, Duke, did not have standing to pursue an ejectment action because it was a mere easement holder. Finding that issue dispositive, the Court of Appeals did not decide whether the City had a property interest. The Court’s holding relied on prior rulings that a trespass action requires interference with the plaintiff’s exclusive possession of the property – ergo, the plaintiff in a trespass action must have exclusive possession of the land. However an easement provides a right to use property, not a right to possess the property. Therefore the easement holder, lacking possessory rights, also lacks the right to sue for trespass. Because Duke could not prevail in its trespass action, the Court considered whether the proposed intersection would impose an impermissible burden on Duke’s easement rights. This question was answered by considering the reasonable necessity of the intersection and the injurious effect of the intersection to Duke. The trial court entered findings that the intersection was reasonably necessary because the change was an effort to beautify the corridor, enhance safety and spur economic development. The trial court also found that the change to the intersection did not affect Duke’s ability to repair or maintain its property within the easement (no injurious effect). On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence at trial supported the trial court’s findings, and the findings were more than sufficient to support the conclusion that the City’s reasonable need for the intersection change outweighed any injurious effect that the intersection change would have on Duke’s use of its easement. Consequently, the trial court correctly held that Duke did not have a reasonable likelihood of success at trial and properly denied Duke’s request for injunctive relief. What do we learn from this case? Clearly an easement holder cannot eject a trespasser. If you are going to obtain an easement or other non-possessory interest, consider whether you want to require the fee simple owner to take action against any trespasser, assign you the rights to do so, or to indemnify you for injury caused by a trespasser. Second, clearly spell out in the easement the purpose of the easement and the scope of your rights. Third, this matter was heard on short notice in Duke’s pursuit of injunctive relief. If more time had been available to search for records, the question of trespass may have been avoided altogether. For a thorough discussion of these issues, or if you have other questions regarding your rights, please contact Steve Runyan or Kevin Koons, or one of our attorneys here to discuss your situation. It would be our pleasure to assist you.

Footnotes:

1. Duke Energy of Indiana, LLC v. City of Franklin, Indiana, (decided December 16, 2016)

Category: Blog, NewsTag: easement, Steven Runyan

Previous Post: « Chances are your taxes are due earlier this year.
Next Post: Bill Bock helps keep the Olympic playing field level. »

Primary Sidebar

If you are interested in our services please fill out the form below.

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone (required)

    Subject

    Your Message

    RECENT POSTS

    Practical Legal Issues regarding Vaping and Schools

    The tobacco use intervention strategies of the past may have low …

    The Federal Trade Commission Announced a Ban on Non-Compete Agreements: What Does That Mean for Your Business?

    We won’t bury the lede: it could be huge, but it’s also probably …

    2 New Attorneys, 1 Paralegal Join KGR

    KGR is thrilled to start the New Year with two new attorneys Wes …

    KGR Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against City of Bloomington in Free Speech Case

    Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and its local chapter on the Indiana …

    KGR Attorneys File Lawsuit Against USA Track & Field to Advance Athlete Health & Safety

    KGR’s Sports and Entertainment Law Team, led by KGR Partner Bill …

    Footer

    Indianapolis Office

    Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP

    111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204

    (317) 692-9000
    (317) 264-6832
    Directions

    Connect with us!

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter

    Newsletter

    Select list(s) to subscribe to


    By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, http://www.kgrlaw.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

    Copyright © 2023 · Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP · Log in