Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795| April 22, 2020 Page 1 of 8

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Glen E. Koch, II

Boren, Oliver & Coffey, LLP

Martinsville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Yasmin L. Stump

Christopher A. Ferguson

Yasmin L. Stump Law Group, PC

Carmel, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bradley SurVance,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Duke Energy Indiana, LLC,

Appellee-Plaintiff

April 22, 2020

Court of Appeals Case Nos.

19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795

Appeal from the Martin Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Lynne E. Ellis, Judge

The Honorable Larry R. Blanton, 

Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

51C01-1903-MI-87, -88, -90, -91

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795| April 22, 2020 Page 2 of 8

Case Summary

[1] Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, filed condemnation complaints against Bradley 

SurVance to amend and release portions of an existing easement on his 

property so that it can better operate and maintain an electric transmission line. 

SurVance filed objections to the complaints, which the trial court overruled. 

On appeal, SurVance argues that this was error. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] SurVance owns several adjoining tracts in Martin County that are subject to an 

express easement, granted by a prior owner, for a Duke Energy electric 

transmission line. In March 2019, Duke Energy filed four condemnation 

complaints against SurVance to amend and release portions of the easement. 

The complaints read as follows:

3. In connection with Duke Energy’s public utility business, it is 

necessary that Duke Energy amend its existing easement across 

[SurVance’s] Real Estate ... for its ... transmission line. This 

amended easement is necessary for the continued safety and 

reliability of electrical service in this area. The amended 

easement will allow Duke Energy to true up its easement interest 

with the as-built transmission line to establish an easement width 

of fifty (50) feet on either side of the as-built transmission line 

eliminating significant vegetation encroachments adjacent to the 

transmission line .... Although Duke Energy has an existing 

easement across [SurVance’s] Real Estate, upon information and 

belief, the transmission line was not centered in the easement 

when it was built in the 1950s due to the terrain. As a result, 

access to the transmission line for construction, operation, 

maintenance and vegetation clearance is too narrow in some 

places and too wide in others. Where the existing easement is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795| April 22, 2020 Page 3 of 8

too narrow, encroaching vegetation creates safety and reliability 

issues for the transmission line and interferes with Duke Energy’s 

ability to safely and adequately construct, operate and maintain 

its facilities.

4. Duke Energy has a present public need and necessity to 

condemn an amended easement interest for the overhead electric 

line facilities described above ....

....

7. With the condemnation of the real estate described ..., Duke 

Energy will release those portions of the existing easement that 

are no longer needed....

8. In addition to the Amendment of Easement ..., it is necessary 

for Duke Energy to acquire by condemnation a right of ingress 

and egress to and from the Easement Area across [SurVance’s] 

Real Estate which adjoins the Easement Area ....

9. Pursuant to IC §[§] 32-24-1-3 and -4, Duke Energy has made 

an effort to purchase the aforesaid Easement Area and Access 

Easement interest from [SurVance], and Duke Energy has been 

unable to agree with [SurVance] for the purchase of the same.

Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 49-51.

[3] SurVance filed objections to the complaints that read as follows:

2. The current line, which runs across the existing easement, 

services one customer [i.e., a U.S. Gypsum manufacturing plant]. 

The location of the property is not part of Duke Energy’s service 

area, and no other individuals are allowed to hook onto the 

service line, as it is purely dedicated for one private company.

3. .... [Duke Energy] has requested an ingress egress easement 
Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795| April 22, 2020 Page 4 of 8

so that it can access the easement area for maintenance. A 

separate ingress egress easement is not necessary in this case for 

maintenance as [Duke Energy] currently has a legal existing 

easement in which it can travel over in order to perform 

maintenance on the current easement area. Further, [Duke 

Energy] has arbitrarily picked a certain area in which [it] wishes 

the easement to be located....

4. .... It is impossible to determine the exact width of the 

easement area which [Duke Energy] wishes to have the Court 

establish, because although the wording does say twenty-five (25) 

feet on each side of the center line of the easement, the language 

concerning the right to remove obstructions on adjacent land 

clearly shows that [Duke Energy] intends to exercise control over 

an area greater than its easement area.

Id. at 126-27.

[4] The trial court consolidated the cases and held a hearing, at which SurVance

presented no evidence. The trial court summarily denied SurVance’s objections 

and appointed appraisers “to assess the total amount of just compensation due 

as a result of [Duke Energy’s] acquisition and release” of the easements. 

Appealed Orders at 3. SurVance now appeals.1

Discussion and Decision

[5] Article 1, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution provides, “No person’s 

property shall be taken by law, without just compensation; nor, except in case 

1 After SurVance filed his notice of appeal, the trial court rescinded its consolidation order. Neither party 

suggests that this has any bearing on our consideration of this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795| April 22, 2020 Page 5 of 8

of the State, without such compensation first assessed and tendered.” Duke 

Energy is a public utility that has the right to exercise the power of eminent 

domain via condemnation proceedings. See Wymberley Sanitary Works v. 

Batliner, 904 N.E.2d 326, 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Ind. Code § 8-1-8-1), 

trans. denied.

2

 Condemnation proceedings involve two stages: an initial or 

summary phase, in which a complaint is filed and the landowner files 

objections thereto, and a second phase in which the landowner’s damages are 

determined. City of Hammond v. Marina Entertainment Complex, Inc., 733 N.E.2d 

958, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied (2001). We are concerned only with 

the first phase here.

[6] To exercise the eminent domain power, “the condemning authority must 

establish, among other things, that it made the statutorily required offer to 

purchase the property interest, that the proposed taking is needed for a public 

purpose, and that there is a current need for the taking[.]” Wymberley, 904 

N.E.2d at 333 (citing Ind. Code § 32-24-1-3 and Ind. & Mich. Elec. Co. v. Harlan, 

504 N.E.2d 301, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)). The necessity of a taking is 

presumed, need not be pled by the condemning authority, and can be disproved 

only by the landowner’s production of evidence of fraud, capriciousness, or 

2 Indiana Code Section 8-1-8-1(a) provides,

A public utility ... engaged in the production, transmission, delivery, or furnishing of ... power 

... to towns and cities and to the public in general ..., for the purpose of enabling it to perform 

its functions, may appropriate and condemn lands of individuals and private corporations, or 

any easement in any lands, necessary to the carrying out of its objects, whether the same be for 

its ... line of poles [or] wires ....
Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795| April 22, 2020 Page 6 of 8

illegality on the authority’s part. State v. Collom, 720 N.E.2d 737, 741-42 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 1999). “The condemning authority’s exercise of its power may not be 

prevented unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.” Ellis v. Pub. Serv. Co. of 

Ind., Inc., 168 Ind. App. 269, 272, 342 N.E.2d 921, 923 (1976).

[7] SurVance has failed to make such a showing here. He raises four arguments, 

the first of which is that the taking is not for a public purpose because the 

transmission line serves, and is only allowed to serve, one customer, U.S. 

Gypsum. SurVance seizes on the following language from Continental 

Enterprises, Inc. v. Cain: “The test whether a use is public or not is whether a 

public trust is imposed upon the property, whether the public has a legal right to 

the use, which cannot be gainsaid, or denied, or withdrawn at the pleasure of 

the owner.” 180 Ind. App. 106, 112, 387 N.E.2d 86, 91 (1979) (citation 

omitted). In Continental, a private company sought to condemn an easement for 

the purpose of more easily accessing its property, from which it could exclude 

members of the public; accordingly, this Court held that the easement was not a 

public use. Here, Duke Energy is a public utility that has legislative 

authorization to condemn easements “to accomplish the essential delivery” of 

electricity “to the public or to any town or city[.]” Ind. Code §§ 32-24-4-1(a), -

2; see also Ind. Code § 8-1-8-1(a). U.S. Gypsum is a commercial member of the 

public3 and has a legal right to use that electricity, which cannot be withdrawn 

3 At the hearing, the trial court noted that U.S. Gypsum “supplies hundreds of jobs to the people in Martin 

County and the surrounding area.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 32.
Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795| April 22, 2020 Page 7 of 8

at the pleasure of Duke Energy. In sum, Duke Energy’s taking passes the 

public-purpose test.4

[8] Second, SurVance argues that the taking is improper because it is unnecessary. 

“[T]he question of necessity is, for the most part, to be determined by the 

condemning utility itself.” Ellis, 168 Ind. App. at 271, 342 N.E.2d at 923. 

Necessity “is not limited to absolute or indispensable needs of the utility, but 

means that which is reasonably proper and useful for the purpose sought.” Id., 

342 N.E.2d at 923. Here, Duke Energy’s purpose in centering its easement is to 

be able to more effectively and efficiently operate and maintain the transmission 

line; our Court has held that in taking property to increase the reliability of its 

electrical system, a utility does not “exceed the authority delegated to it by the 

Legislature.” J.M. Foster Co. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 164 Ind. App. 72, 83, 326 

N.E.2d 584, 591 (1975). More specifically, SurVance complains that Duke 

Energy seeks to obtain an easement over “a roadway which is totally outside of 

the power transmission easement” and that “since 1954, the [line has] been 

utilized without the need for any roadway.” Appellant’s Br. at 11-12.5

 But that 

does not mean that the roadway is not reasonably proper and useful now, and 

SurVance presented no contrary evidence at the hearing.

4 SurVance also complains that the transmission line is outside Duke Energy’s normal service area, but he 

fails to explain how this renders the condemnation illegal.

5 Duke Energy contends that SurVance did not raise this argument in his objections and therefore has waived 

it on appeal. We think that the argument is encompassed by paragraph 3 of his objections.
Court of Appeals of Indiana|Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2774, 2783, 2786, 2795| April 22, 2020 Page 8 of 8

[9] Third, SurVance claims that the route of the easement is arbitrary,6 but he offers 

nothing to support this bald assertion. It is undisputed that Duke Energy’s 

taking will center its easement on either side of the transmission line, which will 

allow for more effective and efficient operation and maintenance. That can 

hardly be considered arbitrary. Cf. Wymberley, 904 N.E.2d at 337 (“It is the 

utility, rather than the trial court, which is best situated to weigh the risks and 

benefits of the location of its lines, which is why the law defers substantially to 

utilities’ choice of route in these cases.”).

[10] Fourth, and finally, SurVance claims that the easement is impermissibly vague 

because “[i]t is impossible to determine the exact width of the ... area” that 

Duke Energy seeks to claim for controlling vegetation on either side of the 

transmission line. Appellant’s Br. at 13. We disagree. Duke Energy points out 

that “the description for [its] permanent vegetation management easements is 

specifically identified as ‘25 feet on either side of the easement area.’” 

Appellee’s Br. at 12 (quoting Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 97). SurVance has 

failed to establish any abuse of discretion, and therefore we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.

6 SurVance also claims that Duke Energy’s need for the easement is arbitrary, which is simply another way of 

saying that the easement is unnecessary.