Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 1 of 15

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

Sean Surrisi

Culver, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Fred R. Jones

Jones Huff Jones & Richeson, LLP

Plymouth, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Neidlinger Trust #0801, by John 

P. Neidlinger and Casey 

Neidlinger, Trustees,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

Michael S. Lewallen and JMJ 

Farms, LLC,

1

Appellee-Respondent.

March 9, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

50A03-1606-MI-1270

Appeal from the 

Marshall Circuit Court

The Honorable 

Curtis D. Palmer, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

50C01-1407-MI-31

 

1

Prior to the judgment in the present case, Neidlinger Trust #0801, by John P. Neidlinger and Casey 

Neidlinger, Trustees, Lewallen, and JMJ Farms, LLC settled the claim of JMJ Farms, LLC by a consent 

judgment that quieted in the name of JMJ Farms, LLC. However, under Indiana Appellate Rule 17(A), a

party of record in the trial court shall be a party on appeal. Sanitary Dist. of City of Hammond v. Town of 

Griffith, 39 N.E.3d 400, 400 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 2 of 15

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] The Neidlinger Trust #0801, by John P. Neidlinger and Casey Neidlinger, 

Trustees (“Neidlinger”) appeals the trial court’s order quieting title to certain 

real estate located in Marshall County, Indiana in favor of Michael S. Lewallen 

(“Lewallen”). Neidlinger raises several issues on appeal, which we consolidate 

and restate as: whether the trial court erred in its judgment quieting title to the 

disputed property in the name of Lewallen.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Around 1900, Mathias Beatty (“Mathias”) owned a large tract of real estate, 

and in 1901, he conveyed a portion of the real estate located in Marshall 

County, Indiana to his son, Isaiah W. Beatty (“Isaiah”). The conveyed parcel 

of land was described by deed from Mathias and his wife, Mary Beatty, to 

Isaiah as follows: “Thirteen acres more or less West of the Rail Road and 

North of the river of the West half of the North East quarter (NE 1⁄4) of Section 

Thirty five (35) in Township Thirty three (33) North Range One East.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 16. This deed was recorded on October 4, 1901. 

[4] In 1902, Mathias devised real estate, located in Marshall County, Indiana, to 

his other son, Norman Beatty, and his daughter, Savilla Beatty. The parcel of 

land was described as follows: “[A]ll that part of the West Half (W 1⁄2) of the 

Northeast Quarter (N.E. 1⁄4) of Section Thirty-five (35), Township Thirty-three 

(33) North, Range One (1) East, that lies South of Yellow River and West of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 3 of 15

the Right of way of the Terre Haute and Logansport Railroad, the same 

containing Ten (10) acres more or less . . . .” Appellant’s App. Vol. IV at 46. A 

map identified as the railroad right of way and track map (“the railroad map”) 

from 1916 shows that the width of the railroad right of way south of the point 

where it touches the Yellow River edge is a width of one hundred feet (50 feet 

on each side of the centerline) and that the width of the railroad right of way 

increases to two hundred feet (100 feet on each side of the centerline) at the 

point where the right of way meets the edge of the Yellow River, then the right 

of way west of the railroad centerline runs along the edge of the Yellow River 

until reaching the West Township and Union Township boundary line. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 28. 

[5] Successive owners of the parcel originally deeded to Isaiah Beatty obtained

ownership of the land utilizing the same description that appeared in the 

original deed to Isaiah Beatty. In 1935, Sylvester Beatty (“Sylvester”) obtained 

ownership in the parcel through a deed that used the same description. 

However, in 1946, when Sylvester transferred ownership of the parcel of land to 

the Semrau family, he employed a different description for the land being 

conveyed because the river changed location. The following legal description 

was used: “[Thirteen (13)] acres, more or less west (W) of the railroad and 

North (N) of the old river bed now evidenced by a fence and bluff and 

continuing said line from said bluff to the railroad right of way, all in the West 

half (W 1⁄2) of the Northeast quarter (NE 1⁄4) of section 35, township 33 North, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 4 of 15

range one (1) east in Union Township, Marshall County, Indiana . . . .” Id. at 

19. The deed was notarized and witnessed by Don F. Kitch (“Kitch”). Id. 

[6] In a deed dated September 10, 1954, the Semraus conveyed the property, along 

with other real estate, to Richard H. Ullery and Vera Ullery using the same 

description that Sylvester used in his conveyance. Id. at 20-21. The deed was 

notarized by Kitch and was recorded on September 27, 1954. Id. at 21. On 

September 24, 1954, prior to the deed being recorded, two affidavits, one by 

Sylvester and one by Warren McFarlin, were witnessed and notarized by Kitch. 

Id. at 26-27. These affidavits contained the same description of the property 

and stated that the Semraus and their grantors had been in possession of the 

property for more than thirty-five years and that no one else had asserted claim 

against the property. Id. The description of the parcel of land remained the 

same in subsequent conveyances up to, and including, the deed conveying the 

property to Lewallen in March 2006. 

[7] The property originally deeded to Norman and Savilla Beatty continued to be 

described as it was in the original conveyance all the way up to, and including, 

when it was conveyed to Don Neidlinger in 1971. When Don Neidlinger died, 

the property, along with other surrounding property, passed to his sons as 

trustees of the Neidlinger Trust. 

[8] In 2014, Lewallen sought to apply for the classification of his property as forest 

land and wildland. As part of the application, Lewallen requested his 

employer, Territorial Engineering, to prepare a survey of his property. On July 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 5 of 15

18, 2014, Neidlinger filed a complaint against Lewallen to quiet title to, among 

other parcels of property, a 4.78-acre parcel of land, labeled as Parcel V, which

Neidlinger contended was part of Parcel IV, the property originally conveyed to 

Norman and Savilla and described as lying south of the Yellow River and west 

of the railroad right of way. On August 14, 2014, Lewallen filed his answer and 

counterclaim to quiet title to the disputed 4.78 acres of land. A bench trial was 

held and the parties submitted written final arguments and proposed findings of 

fact and conclusions. The trial court issued its order quieting title to Parcel V, 

the disputed 4.78 acres, in favor of Lewallen. Neidlinger now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] The trial court issued specific findings and conclusions in making its judgment. 

Our standard of review when the trial court has set forth specific findings and 

conclusions at the request of a party is well settled. Estate of Kappel v. Kappel, 

979 N.E.2d 642, 651 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 

First, we determine whether the evidence supports the findings 

and second, whether the findings support the judgment. In 

deference to the trial court’s proximity to the issues, we disturb 

the judgment only where there is no evidence supporting the 

findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. We do not 

reweigh the evidence, but consider only the evidence favorable to 

the trial court’s judgment. Challengers must establish that the 

trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Findings are clearly 

erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced 

a mistake has been made. However, while we defer substantially 

to findings of fact, we do not do so to conclusions of law. 

Additionally, a judgment is clearly erroneous under Indiana Trial 

Rule 52 if it relies on an incorrect legal standard. We evaluate 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 6 of 15

questions of law de novo and owe no deference to a trial court’s 

determination of such questions.

Id. at 651-52 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

[10] Because Neidlinger did not prevail at trial, it appeals from a negative judgment.

A judgment entered against a party who bore the burden of proof at trial is a 

negative judgment. Smith v. Dermatology Assocs. of Fort Wayne, P.C., 977 N.E.2d 

1, 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). On appeal, we will not reverse a negative judgment 

unless it is contrary to law. Id. In determining whether a judgment is contrary 

to law, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, 

together with all the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. “A party 

appealing from a negative judgment must show that the evidence points 

unerringly to a conclusion different than that reached by the trial court.” Id. 

[11] Neidlinger argues that the trial court erred in its judgment quieting title to the 

disputed 4.78 acres in favor of Lewallen because the trial court’s conclusion that 

title should be quieted in Lewallen’s favor was not supported by the evidence 

presented at trial. Neidlinger asserts that it had priority of title to the disputed 

land, and its senior title interest was not defeated by Lewallen. Neidlinger 

claims that the description of its property contained in its title included the 

disputed land because the 4.78 acres was encompassed in the property “south of 

the Yellow River,” as his parcel of land was described in the title. Appellant’s 

App. Vol. IV at 46. Neidlinger further argues that the change in description of 

Lewallen’s property done by Sylvester in 1946 was not accurate as there was no 

evidence that the river moved from the location of the “purported ‘old river bed’ 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 7 of 15

to its current location” and that this attempt by Sylvester to “stake a claim” to 

Neidlinger’s land would not take priority over its title dating back to 1909. 

Appellant’s Br. at 25, 26. Additionally, Neidlinger contends that the trial court’s 

reliance on Lewallen’s survey was not proper because the survey did not 

comply with statutory and administrative requirements.2 

[12] Indiana is a race-notice state, and Indiana Code section 32-21-4-1 provides, in 

part:

(a) The following must be recorded in the recorder’s office of the 

county where the land is situated:

(1) A conveyance or mortgage of land or of any interest in land.

(2) A lease for more than three (3) years.

(b) A conveyance, mortgage, or lease takes priority according to 

the time of its filing. The conveyance, mortgage, or lease is 

fraudulent and void as against any subsequent purchaser, lessee, 

or mortgagee in good faith and for a valuable consideration if the 

purchaser’s, lessee’s, or mortgagee’s deed, mortgage, or lease is 

first recorded.

 

2 Neidlinger spends a portion of its brief discussing riparian rights and how any movement of the river could 

not have deprived it of its riparian rights and would not have justified a change in Lewallen’s legal 

description from a “property with a border that fluctuated with the river’s movement to one with a fixed 

border.” Appellant’s Br. at 21. However, Neidlinger did not raise this line of argument to the trial court. 

“Failure to raise an issue before the trial court will result in waiver of that issue.” Heaphy v. Ogle, 896 N.E.2d 

551, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). We, therefore, do not reach Neidlinger’s argument regarding riparian rights. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 8 of 15

The recording statutes offer protection to subsequent purchasers, lessees, and 

mortgagees. Weathersby v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 906 N.E.2d 904, 909-10 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quotation marks omitted) (citing Szakaly v. Smith, 544 

N.E.2d 490, 492 (Ind. 1989)). Instruments will have priority according to the 

time of the filing thereof. Meyer v. Marine Builders, Inc., 797 N.E.2d 760, 774 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2003). 

[13] Here, in 1901, Mathias Beatty conveyed a portion of his real estate to Isaiah W. 

Beatty, which was described as follows: “Thirteen acres more or less West of 

the Rail Road and North of the river of the West half of the North East quarter 

(NE 1⁄4) of Section Thirty five (35) in Township Thirty three (33) North Range 

One East.” Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 16. The deed was recorded on October 4, 

1901. Later, in 1902, Mathias Beatty devised real estate to his other son, 

Norman Beatty, and his daughter, Savilla Beatty, which was described as 

follows: “[A]ll that part of the West Half (W 1⁄2) of the Northeast Quarter (N.E. 

1⁄4) of Section Thirty-five (35), Township Thirty-three (33) North, Range One 

(1) East, that lies South of Yellow River and West of the Right of way of the 

Terre Haute and Logansport Railroad, the same containing Ten (10) acres more 

or less . . . .” Appellant’s App. Vol. IV at 46. Under Indiana’s race-notice statute, 

the land conveyed to Isaiah Beatty was recorded first and has priority under any 

later recorded deeds. We must, therefore, determine if the disputed 4.78 acres 

were included in the conveyance to Isaiah Beatty, which is presently owned by 

Lewallen, or to Norman Beatty, which is presently owned by Neidlinger.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 9 of 15

[14] When conveyed, the land which is now owned by Lewallen contained the 

following pertinent description: “Thirteen acres more or less West of the Rail 

Road and North of the river.” Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 16. The original deed 

mentioned the existence of the railroad that runs along the eastern boundary of 

the property, but only referenced the railroad itself and made no reference to the 

railroad right of way. The land now owned by Neidlinger contained the 

following relevant description: “that [which] lies South of Yellow River and 

West of the Right of way of the Terre Haute and Logansport Railroad, the same 

containing Ten (10) acres more or less.” Appellant’s App. Vol. IV at 46. This 

description acknowledged the existence of the railroad, but mentioned only the 

railroad right of way and not the railroad itself as Lewallen’s original deed had 

done. 

[15] The railroad map admitted at trial showed that the width of the railroad right of 

way south of the point where it touches the Yellow River edge is a width of one 

hundred feet (50 feet on each side of the centerline) and that the width of the 

railroad right of way increases to two hundred feet at the point where the right 

of way meets the edge of the Yellow River, then the right of way west of the 

railroad center line runs along the edge of the Yellow River until reaching the 

West Township and Union Township boundary line. Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 

28. Because this expansion of the width of the railroad right of way extended 

all the way to the eastern edge of the river, the entire disputed 4.78 acres was 

located to the east of the railroad right of way. Id. Based on the location of the 

railroad right of way, the land devised to Neidlinger’s original predecessors in 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 10 of 15

title had to be located south of the point where the railroad right of way and the 

river converged. The description of Neidlinger’s property states that it lies 

south of the river and west of the railroad right of way. However, none of the 

disputed 4.78 acres lies west of the railroad right of way; instead, it all lies east 

of it. Id. 

[16] We find further support that the disputed 4.78 acres is included in Lewallen’s 

property in the fact that Neidlinger’s property description states that it includes 

land that lies south of the river. The northern border of the disputed property is 

the township line and not the river; therefore, the only land south the of river is 

below the disputed property line, which corresponds to Neidlinger’s 

approximately six acres. Additionally, the description for the land conveyed to 

Lewallen’s original predecessor in title stated that it was land west of the 

railroad and north of the river. If that conveyance only included the portion of 

land that Neidlinger claims, then the phrase west of the railroad was not 

necessary because the land could have been described as being west and north 

of the river since the river would form the western and southern boundaries of 

the property as Neidlinger contends. We, therefore, conclude, that, at the time 

of original conveyance, the disputed 4.78 acres was a part of the property 

conveyed to Isaiah Beatty and now owned by Lewallen. 

[17] Within Lewallen’s chain of title, the description of the property stayed the same 

until 1946. That year, Sylvester employed a different description for the land 

being conveyed due to the river changing location, which was: “[Thirteen (13)] 

acres, more or less west (W) of the railroad and North (N) of the old river bed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 11 of 15

now evidenced by a fence and bluff and continuing said line from said bluff to the railroad 

right of way, all in the West half (W 1⁄2) of the Northeast quarter (NE 1⁄4) of 

section 35, township 33 North, range one (1) east in Union Township, Marshall 

County, Indiana . . . .” Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 19 (emphasis added). This 

description has remained consistent through all the subsequent transfers of title, 

including the transfer to Lewallen. Neidlinger contends that this change in the 

property’s description is significant because it was an attempt to change the 

“property’s southern border from a fluctuating one to a fixed one” and that any 

land created by the movement of the river, should benefit the owner south of 

the river, Neidlinger, and not Lewallen. Appellant’s Br. at 25. 

[18] Lewallen testified that the reason for this change in the description of the 

property was a change in the location of the Yellow River. Tr. at 263. He 

testified that, sometime after the railroad map was made in 1916 and before the 

property description changed in 1946, the river’s path changed slightly to the 

west and it pulled away from the area where the railroad right of way extended 

to a 200-foot width into its current location. Id. The railroad map clearly 

showed that the river, at that time, abutted the railroad right of way where it 

extended to a width of 200 feet. Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 28. In 2014, the 

survey prepared by Territorial Engineering showed the location of the river as it 

was at that time and reflected that the river had shifted west from the time the 

railroad map was created. Id. at 4-5. The survey depicted the location of the 

old river bed, which is now marked by a fence and bluff. Id. Neidlinger did not 

present any competing surveys to the trial court or present any evidence that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 12 of 15

information contained in the 2014 survey was incorrect. Additionally, there 

was other testimony to support the contention that the river had changed 

location in the time since the property was originally conveyed. Carol Beatty, 

who previously owned Lewallen’s property from 1960 to 2002, testified that her 

father-in-law, who owned the property before her and her husband, told her 

that the river had changed course some time prior to 1960. Tr. at 147, 150. 

Carol Beatty’s son, Jeff Beatty, also testified that his grandfather spoke of the 

river changing course. Id. at 165. 

[19] The 1946 change in the description of property by Sylvester did not, as 

Neidlinger contends, change the southern border of the property or the area of 

land legally described. Instead, this change in description was simply done to

properly show the existing property boundary because the original property 

description from 1901 no longer accurately reflected the actual property lines. 

Because we have previously determined that the disputed 4.78 acres were 

contained in the land originally conveyed in 1901 to Isaiah Beatty and 

continuing through Lewallen’s chain of title, we conclude that this change in 

legal description did not cause any change in the title of the 4.78 acres.3 

[20] Neidlinger contends that it was error for the trial court to rely on the 2014 

survey because it was not conducted as a legal survey under Indiana Code 

 

3 Neidlinger raises an issue challenging that Lewallen or any of his predecessors in title gained title to the 

4.78 acres through adverse possession. However, as we have concluded that the disputed 4.78 acres was 

included in the original conveyance in 1901 to Isaiah Beatty and continued to Lewallen as the present owner, 

we do not reach Neidlinger’s adverse possession argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 13 of 15

section 36-2-12-10, which sets out certain requirements to follow when a 

landowner desires to “establish the location of the line between the landowner’s 

land and that of an adjoining landowner.” Ind. Code § 36-2-12-10(b). Here, 

however, Lewallen did not have the survey done in order to establish the 

property line between his property and Neidlinger’s property. Lewallen had the 

survey prepared as part of his application for the classification of his property as 

forest land and wildland, and it was not intended to be a legal survey. 

[21] Neidlinger also asserts that the survey failed to meet the minimum standards for 

retracement surveys under the Indiana Administrative Code. The applicable 

standard provides in pertinent part:

(b) The plat of survey, together with the accompanying 

surveyor’s report, shall show or otherwise contain the following 

information at a minimum:

. . . .

(9) Any:

. . . .

(B) streams;

. . . .

on or within seventy-five (75) feet of the surveyed premises. A 

detailed location, based on applicable statutes and rules, is 

required when a boundary or easement is determined thereby.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 14 of 15

. . . .

(11) Adjoining parcels identified by title description or record 

reference. Contiguity, gaps, and overlaps with adjoining parcels 

shall be clearly shown and dimensioned. Show only the portion 

of adjoining tracts relevant to the location of the surveyed tract.

865 Ind. Admin. Code 1-12-13(b)(9)(B), (11). Neidlinger’s brief neglects to 

include the part of subsection (11) that states: “Show only the portion of 

adjoining tracts relevant to the location of the surveyed tract.” 865 I.A.C. 1-12-

13(11). Contrary to Neidlinger’s contention, the survey did show the Yellow 

River in its current location and the location of the old river bed and bluff. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. V at 4-5. The survey also showed the identity of adjacent 

property owners, but there was no need to show any overlap between 

Lewallen’s and Neidlinger’s property as they do not actually overlap. Id. 

[22] Neidlinger also argues that this court should not give much weight to the trial 

court’s findings and conclusions because they were a wholesale adoption of 

Lewallen’s proposed findings and conclusions. Neidlinger is correct that 

Indiana courts have stated that the practice of adopting a party’s findings and 

conclusions verbatim weakens the “confidence as an appellate court that the 

findings are the result of considered judgment by the trial court.” Kitchell v. 

Franklin, 26 N.E.3d 1050, 1057 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Cook v. WhitsellSherman, 796 N.E.2d 271, 273 n.1 (Ind. 2003)), trans. denied. However, in the 

present case, the trial court did not adopt Lewallen’s proposed findings and 

conclusions verbatim, which included eleven proposed findings and four 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 50A03-1606-MI-1270 | March 9, 2017 Page 15 of 15

conclusions, while the trial court’s judgment included fifty findings and five 

conclusions. Appellant’s App. Vol. III at 47-51; Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 9-19. 

Neidlinger appears to claim that the trial court’s amendment of the original 

judgment in response to Lewallen’s motion to correct error should be treated as 

a wholesale adoption of Lewallen’s proposed findings and conclusions. We 

disagree. In its original judgment, the trial court made a scrivener’s error in 

identifying the disputed 4.78 acres as Parcel IV, when it should have been 

referred to as Parcel V. Lewallen’s motion to correct error was simply to point 

out the error and to request that all references be changed accordingly, which 

the trial court promptly did when it issued its amended findings and 

conclusions. Therefore, there was no verbatim adoption of Lewallen’s 

proposed findings and conclusions.

[23] We conclude that the trial court did not err in its judgment that the disputed 

4.78 acres were included in the original conveyance of property to Isaiah Beatty 

in 1901 and continued to be a part of the property through all successors in title 

up to and including Lewallen. The subsequent change in the legal description 

of the property in 1946 did not alter the ownership of the 4.78 acres. The 

evidence presented at trial supported the trial court’s findings, and the findings 

supported the trial court’s conclusions. We affirm the trial court’s judgment 

that title to the 4.78 acres should be quieted in favor of Lewallen.

[24] Affirmed. 

[25] Robb, J., and Barnes, J., concur.