Hartig v. Stratman

Indiana Court of Appeals
729 N.E.2d 237 (2000)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An encumbrance on real property is outside the chain of title and does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser if the instrument creating the encumbrance is recorded after the deed conveying the property from the common grantor has already been recorded.

Facts:

Melvin and Louise Stratman own real property at 2208 E. Walnut St., and Timothy Hartig owns the adjacent property at 2210 E. Walnut St.
A shared driveway is located on both parcels, with the majority situated on Hartig's property.
On May 31, 1994, John Connell, the owner of Hartig's property, sold it to Sean Holmes.
On the same day, Connell entered into a written agreement granting the Stratmans a perpetual easement over the shared driveway.
On June 8, 1994, at 2:24 p.m., the deed transferring the property from Connell to Holmes was recorded in the Vanderburgh County Recorder’s Office.
One minute later, on June 8, 1994, at 2:25 p.m., the easement agreement between Connell and the Stratmans was recorded.
On September 28, 1995, Holmes sold the property to Hartig, who was not informed about the easement agreement.
Subsequently, Hartig blocked the driveway, preventing the Stratmans from using it.

Procedural Posture:

Melvin and Louise Stratman filed a complaint against Timothy Hartig in an Indiana trial court, initially alleging a right to use the driveway by adverse possession.
The trial court granted Hartig’s motion to dismiss the Stratmans’ complaint pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).
The Stratmans filed an amended complaint alleging trespass.
The Stratmans then filed a “Second Paragraph of Amended Complaint,” asserting a right to use the driveway based on the Connell-Stratman easement agreement.
Hartig filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
The trial court denied Hartig's motion for summary judgment.
Hartig initiated an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a recorded easement agreement provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value if that easement was recorded after the deed conveying the property from the common grantor was recorded?

Opinions:

Majority - Sharpnack, C.J.

No. A recorded easement does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser if it falls outside the purchaser's chain of title. Under Indiana's recording statute, a document is considered outside the chain of title if it is recorded after the grantor has already conveyed the property via a previously recorded deed. To determine the chain of title, a searcher looks up a grantor's name until a conveyance from that grantor is found, and the search for that grantor's name stops at that point. Here, the Connell-to-Holmes deed was recorded at 2:24 p.m. Any title search would find this conveyance and would not continue searching under Connell's name. Therefore, the Connell-Stratman easement, recorded one minute later at 2:25 p.m., was outside the chain of title, and Hartig, as a subsequent bona fide purchaser without actual notice, is not bound by it. The court also rejected Hartig's election of remedies argument, holding that a dismissal under T.R. 12(B)(6) is without prejudice and not an adjudication on the merits if the plaintiff files an amended complaint.

Concurring - Robb, J.

No. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's resolution of the driveway easement issue based on the chain of title analysis. However, it writes separately to clarify the scope of the remaining trespass claim. If the Stratmans allege Hartig trespassed by blocking the portion of the driveway on their own property, that claim can proceed. If, however, the trespass claim is based solely on Hartig blocking access to the easement on his own property, that claim fails because the easement is not binding on him.

Analysis:

This decision provides a strict and clear application of the chain of title doctrine within a race-notice recording system. It highlights the critical importance of the precise timing of recording legal instruments affecting real property. The ruling establishes that an interest recorded even moments after the grantor has conveyed the property is void against a subsequent bona fide purchaser, reinforcing the principle that a purchaser's duty to search records for a given grantor ends once a deed from that grantor is discovered. This case serves as a crucial precedent for property law, emphasizing that the sequence of recording determines priority and constructive notice.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hartig v. Stratman (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"