Hartig v. Stratman
Indiana Court of Appeals
729 N.E.2d 237 (2000)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
John Connell owned a house at 2210 East Walnut Street in Evansville, Indiana (the 2210 house). Connell lived next door to Melvin and Louise Stratman (plaintiffs). Connell and the Stratmans used a shared driveway to access their homes. The driveway was located on both properties, but the majority of the driveway was located on the 2210 house’s property. Connell sold the 2210 house to Sean Holmes. On the day that Connell sold the house, Connell entered into a driveway-easement agreement with the Stratmans. The driveway easement gave the Stratmans a perpetual easement over the portion of the driveway located on the 2210 house’s property. The agreement also gave any owners of the 2210 house’s property a perpetual easement over the portion of the driveway on the Stratmans’ property. The deed transferring the 2210-house property from Connell to Holmes was recorded at the county recorder’s office on June 8, 1994, at 2:24 p.m. The driveway easement was recorded at the office on the same day but one minute later, at 2:25 p.m. A year later, Holmes sold the 2210 house to Timothy Hartig (defendant). Holmes did not tell Hartig about the driveway easement. Three years later, the Stratmans filed a complaint alleging that Hartig was blocking the shared driveway, preventing the Stratmans from using it. The Stratmans argued that the driveway easement gave them a right to use the driveway. Hartig moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied Hartig’s motion. Hartig appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, asserting that the easement agreement was not binding on him because it was recorded outside the chain of title for the 2210 house property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sharpnack, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.