Cochran v. Hoffman - 971 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)

Rule:

Language limiting the easement to ingress and egress has generally been found to prohibit parking. A right of way easement created by a conveyance in general terms and without restrictions on its use is to be construed as broad enough to permit any use that is reasonably connected with the reasonable use of the land. Thus, where the easement is a general right of way, parking is not prohibited.

Facts:

Dennis Cochran and his wife, Sandra, own a large tract of real estate ("the Cochran property") in Dearborn County, Indiana, on which they live. Due to the Cochran property being landlocked, the Cochrans access their property via an easement across property owned by Hoffman ("the Hoffman property"). Over the years, the Cochrans have parked their vehicles on the easement. In 2011, John Dye, who was living on the Hoffman property, had the Cochrans’ vehicle towed because it was, at least partially, parked on the Hoffman property outside of the easement. Hoffman and Dye then filed the present action against the Cochrans in small claims court. Following a trial, the court entered judgment stating that the easement did not grant the Cochrans the right to park on the easement and that neither party was entitled to monetary damages against the other. The Cochrans challenged the decision.

Issue:

Did the easement granted to Dennis and Sandy Cochran include a right to park within the easement? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court noted that in construing an instrument granting an easement, the intention of the parties must be ascertained and be given effect. In this case, the grant of the easement was unambiguous; therefore, the grant of the easement must be interpreted as a matter of law. The language of the instrument granting the easement reflected the grantors’ intent to create a general easement; it did not limit the scope of the easement in any way. More particularly, the language did not limit the easement to ingress and egress, which has generally been found to prohibit parking. According to the court, a right of way easement created by a conveyance in general terms and without restrictions on its use should be construed as broad enough to permit any use that was reasonably connected with the reasonable use of the land. Thus, the trial court committed error in finding that the right of way easement in the present case for all purposes of travel did not include the right to park within the easement's boundaries.