Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 1 of 20

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Michael L. Carmin 

Carminparker, PC

Bloomington, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Ryan J. Vershay

A. Richard M. Blaiklock

Derek G. Raymond 

Lewis Wagner, LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Craig Newforth and Marcia 

Newforth,

Appellants-Defendants,

v.

Jason Bault,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

March 6, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

60A05-1712-PL-2969

Appeal from the Owen Circuit 

Court 

The Honorable Elizabeth Cure, 

Special Judge 

Trial Court Cause No.

60C02-1609-PL-343 

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 2 of 20

[1] Craig and Marcia Newforth appeal the trial court’s order determining the extent 

of an easement over some of their property. The Newforths raise two issues

which we restate as whether the judgment is clearly erroneous. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Jason Bault operates a mulch business and owns approximately five acres in 

Owen County, Indiana (the “Bault Property”). State Road 43 is located along 

the eastern boundary of the Bault Property. Bault also owns several parcels (the 

“Northern Bault Parcels”) located north of the Bault Property. Checkered 

Racing owns a parcel (the “Checkered Racing Parcel”) west of the Bault 

Property. The Newforths own real property containing approximately 19.55 

acres (“Newforth Property”) west of the Checkered Racing Parcel from which 

they operate a trash service, and they own a fifty-foot-wide strip of land 

containing 0.88 acres (the “Easement Area”) subject to an easement (the 

“Easement”) which extends from the 19.55-acre property eastward along the 

southern boundary of the Checkered Racing Parcel and the Bault Property to 

intersect with State Road 43. A gravel industrial access road (the “Access 

Road”) is located in the Easement Area. Bault has an agreement with 

Checkered Racing pursuant to which he may access the Northern Bault Parcels 

using the Checkered Racing Parcel. The Newforth Property, Bault Property,

and Northern Bault Parcels are part of Franklin Industrial Park.

[3] By way of background, Cheryl Franklin conveyed property of approximately 

five acres to Jim Sinders by deed dated March 5, 1998, and recorded March 10, 

1998 (the “Franklin Deed”). The Franklin Deed also granted the Easement to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 3 of 20

Sinders and included a legal description of the Easement Area. A plat for 

Franklin Industrial Park executed by Cheryl Franklin and recorded on 

December 11, 2000, depicts the five-acre parcel conveyed to Sinders (which is

now the Bault Property), a 19.55-acre parcel (which is now the Newforth 

Property), the Easement Area, and other parcels adjacent to the Easement 

Area. The 2000 plat in the record depicts the following: 

19.55-Acre Parcel

(currently, the 

Newforth Property)

5.00-Acre Parcel 

(currently, the 

Bault Property)

The Easement

Area

State Road 43

Currently, the 

Checkered Racing Parcel
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 4 of 20

See Exhibit 3.1

 Sinders conveyed the five-acre parcel and his right to use the

Easement to John and Peggy Tucker by deed dated August 16, 2006, and 

recorded August 18, 2006 (the “Tucker Deed”). An amended plat of Franklin 

Industrial Park was recorded in May 2009 depicting the five-acre parcel owned 

by the Tuckers (now the Bault Property), the land owned by Cheryl Franklin, 

and the 0.88-acre Easement Area. 

[4] Cheryl Franklin conveyed property to the Newforths by deed dated June 28, 

2011, and recorded June 29, 2011 (the “Newforth Deed”), which included the 

Newforth Property of approximately 19.55 acres and the 0.88-acre Easement 

Area. The Newforth Deed conveyed the Easement Area “[s]ubject to an 

affirmative duty to maintain the easement from the 19.55 acre tract to State 

Road 43 for the benefit of the 19.55 acre tract and the adjacent parcels abutting 

the easement as shown on” the 2000 plat. Exhibit 5. The Tuckers conveyed 

their five-acre parcel and rights under the Easement to Bault by deed dated 

April 29, 2016, and recorded June 13, 2016 (the “Bault Deed”). The southern 

boundary of the Bault Property coincides with the northern boundary of the 

Easement Area. 

[5] At some point, Bault approached Craig Newforth about installing drives over a 

part of the Easement Area in order to connect the Bault Property to the Access

Road, and Craig Newforth objected. On September 12, 2016, Bault filed a 

 

1 The arrows and names of the Checkered Racing Parcel, the Newforth Property, the Bault Property, State 

Road 43, and the Easement Area are supplied by this Court. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 5 of 20

complaint seeking declaratory relief and an injunction. Bault alleged a shallow 

ditch separated his property from the Access Road, that access to and from his 

property by semi tractor trailer vehicles is reasonable and necessary for his 

mulch business, and that he desires to install at his expense a culvert pipe and 

two graded gravel areas within the Easement Area. He requested a permanent 

injunction enjoining the Newforths from interfering with his rights. 

[6] On December 9, 2016, at Bault’s request the trial court conducted a site visit 

with the parties, and in September 2017, it held a bench trial. Bault presented 

numerous exhibits including the relevant recorded instruments, the Owen 

County zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan, proposed drive illustrations, 

traffic notes, and photographs of the Easement Area, his vehicles and mulch 

operation, and the access drives of other mulch businesses. Bault presented 

evidence related to the volume and types of vehicles which would use the access

drives and proposed a design of two forty-foot-wide drives, a forty-five-foot 

apron on the east side of each drive,2 and a fifteen-foot apron on the west side 

of each drive, and he presented evidence regarding the reasons for his proposed 

design. 

[7] On November 14, 2017, the court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 

Law and Judgment. It found that Bault’s rights under the Easement include the 

 

2 “The ‘apron’ is the area on either side of a driveway which flares wider at its connection point with the 

roadway (here, the Access Road) [and] is intended to allow turning vehicles additional maneuvering space as 

they negotiate the turn.” Appellants’ Appendix Volume 2 at 23. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 6 of 20

right to utilize the entire Easement and Access Road for vehicular access to and 

from the Bault Property; the right to install two one-hundred-foot-wide access 

areas which are reasonably necessary to Bault’s use and enjoyment of the 

Easement; the right to install a drainage culvert under each access area; and the 

right to utilize the Easement and Access Road for vehicular access by Bault’s 

heavy equipment vehicles to and from the Northern Bault Parcels via the 

Checkered Racing Parcel. The court found that the terms of the Easement are 

clear and unambiguous, permit Bault’s intended installation of the access areas,

and do not restrict the manner in which he can use and develop the Bault 

Property, the type and size of vehicles he and his customers can utilize, the type 

and size of drives or access areas he can install within the Easement Area, or his 

use of the Easement for his heavy equipment vehicles to access the Northern 

Bault Parcels via the Checkered Racing Parcel. 

[8] The court further found it was reasonably foreseeable at the time the Easement

was created that it would be utilized by semi tractor trailers and heavy 

equipment vehicles. It found that Bault’s intended use will not subject the 

Newforth Property to extra burdens or materially impair or unreasonably 

interfere with the Newforths’ use and enjoyment of the Newforth Property. It 

found that Bault’s anticipated annual volume of vehicles is reasonably 

foreseeable, permissible, and consistent with the historical use of the Access 

Road and Franklin Industrial Park, and that his rights under the Easement

include the right to utilize the entire 0.88-acre, fifty-foot-wide Easement for 

vehicular access to and from the Bault Property. The court also found that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 7 of 20

Bault may use the Easement and Access Road for vehicular access by his heavy 

equipment vehicles to and from Northern Bault Parcels via the Checkered 

Racing Parcel for as long as the current owner of the Checkered Racing Parcel 

allows such access. 

[9] Other findings are that a drive width of forty feet is reasonably necessary for 

semi tractor trailers to safely and sufficiently enter and exit the Bault Property, 

an eastern apron of forty-five feet in width is reasonably necessary for the 

vehicles to enter and exit the Bault Property to and from the east via the Access 

Road and State Road 43, and a western apron of fifteen feet is reasonably 

necessary for Bault’s heavy equipment vehicles to safely and sufficiently exit the 

Bault Property to the west toward the Checkered Racing Parcel and the 

Northern Bault Parcels at all times of day and in all weather conditions. The 

court found the total width of the access areas allows semi tractor trailers to 

enter the Bault Property without having to swing into the oncoming lane of 

traffic in the Access Road or the access area which would present a safety risk 

and create traffic conflicts. Further the court found that Bault established by 

clear and convincing evidence that a second drive prevents vehicles from 

backing up on the Access Road and potentially State Road 43, promotes more 

efficient internal traffic flow on the Bault Property, and creates less stress on the 

semi tractor trailers and their tires, and enjoined the Newforths from interfering 

with Bault’s rights under the Easement. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 8 of 20

Discussion

[10] In entering declaratory judgment for Bault, the trial court issued findings of fact 

and conclusions thereon pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52. Our standard of 

review is well-settled:

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 

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

determination of such questions.

McCauley v. Harris, 928 N.E.2d 309, 313 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citations 

omitted), reh’g denied, trans. denied. The Newforths are appealing from an 

adverse judgment, and the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous if they are 

not supported by substantial evidence of probative value. See id. We will affirm 

a judgment where we find substantial supporting evidence, unless we are left 

with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. 

[11] The Newforths assert that the extension of the right to use the Easement for 

access to property not identified as the benefited property or dominant estate of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 9 of 20

the easement, namely, the Northern Bault Parcels, is an improper extension of

the easement and overburdens the easement. They argue: “The design 

characteristics are not in dispute with the exception of the fifteen foot (15’) 

apron, the sole purpose of which would allow traffic to exit the Bault Real 

Estate westbound, which is an improper enlargement of the easement.” 

Appellants’ Brief at 17. Further, the Newforths argue that the genesis of Bault’s 

desire for two drives was his unspecified plans for stockpiling mulch on his fiveacre parcel, and that he provided nothing demonstrating a layout for stockpiling 

mulch or why two drives allow greater utilization of his land than one drive. 

[12] Bault maintains the Newforths do not contend on appeal that any ambiguity 

exists in the terms of the Easement. He argues that Checkered Racing has 

consented to his use of its parcel to access the Northern Bault Parcels and that 

the Easement does not require the Newforths’ consent. Bault further maintains 

that the evidence supports the conclusion that the second drive is reasonably 

necessary for his use of the Easement and that a second drive avoids damaging 

vehicles and equipment, promotes traffic flow and safety on the Access Road 

and State Road 43, allows him to store additional mulch, is common in the 

mulch industry, and is consistent with the Easement’s purpose of permitting 

industrial vehicles safe and sufficient access to and from the rural industrial 

park parcels. He also argues that the fifteen-foot western aprons and use of the 

Checkered Racing Parcel enable him to keep his slow-moving heavy equipment 

vehicles off of State Road 43 which would impede the flow of traffic and 

present a risk to driver safety. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 10 of 20

[13] The owner of an easement, known as the dominant estate, possesses all rights 

necessarily incident to the enjoyment of the easement. Rehl v. Billetz, 963

N.E.2d 1, 6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Kwolek v. Swickard, 944 N.E.2d 564, 

570 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citing McCauley, 928 N.E.2d at 313), trans. denied). 

The owners of the property over which the easement passes, known as the 

servient estate, may use their property in any manner and for any purpose 

consistent with the enjoyment of the easement, and the dominant estate cannot 

interfere with the use. Id. All rights necessarily incident to the enjoyment of 

the easement are possessed by the owner of the dominant estate, and it is the 

duty of the servient owner to permit the dominant owner to enjoy the dominant 

owner’s easement without interference. Id. The servient owners may not so 

use their land as to obstruct the easement or interfere with the enjoyment 

thereof by the owner of the dominant estate. Id. at 6-7. Moreover, the owner of 

the dominant estate cannot subject the servient estate to extra burdens, any 

more than the holder of the servient estate can materially impair or 

unreasonably interfere with the use of the easement. Id. at 7. 

[14] Indiana cases have held that the owner of an easement possesses all rights 

necessarily incident to the enjoyment of the easement, and that the owner may 

make such repairs, improvements, or alterations as are reasonably necessary to 

make the grant of the easement effectual. Duke Energy of Ind., LLC v. City of 

Franklin, 69 N.E.3d 471, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Litzelswope v. Mitchell,

451 N.E.2d 366, 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (citations omitted)). See also Kwolek, 

944 N.E.2d at 571 (“The dominant estate holder may make repairs, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 11 of 20

improvements, or alterations that are reasonably necessary to make the grant of 

the easement effectual.”) (citing McCauley, 928 N.E.2d at 313); Metcalf v. Houk, 

644 N.E.2d 597, 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (“The owner of the easement has a 

right to make such alterations and improvements as to make the grant effectual, 

provided, that an owner in common of an easement may not alter or use the 

land in such a manner as to render the easement appreciably less convenient 

and useful for other co-owners.”) (citations omitted). 

[15] The extent of the easement interest is determined by the purpose served by the 

easement. Howard v. United States, 964 N.E.2d 779, 781 (Ind. 2012) (citations 

omitted). Usually, easements arise to fill some need or serve some purpose. Id.

(citing Klotz v. Horn, 558 N.E.2d 1096, 1099-1100 (Ind. 1990)). That purpose, 

whether expressed in the grant, implied, or acquired through prescription, is the 

focal point in the relationship which exists between the titleholders of the 

dominant and servient estates. Id. The servient estate is burdened to the extent 

necessary to accomplish the end for which the dominant estate was created. Id. 

See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY (SERVITUDES) § 4.10 (2000) (the 

holder of the easement “is entitled to use the servient estate in a manner that is 

reasonably necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the servitude”); 

Comment b., § 4.10 (“In resolving conflicts among the parties to servitudes, the 

public policy favoring socially productive use of land generally leads to striking 

a balance that maximizes the aggregate utility of the servitude beneficiary and 

the servient estate.”); Comment e., § 4.10 (easement holder may construct 

improvements on the servient estate “subject to the proviso that the holder . . . 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 12 of 20

is not entitled to cause unreasonable damage to the servient estate or interfere 

unreasonably with its enjoyment”); Comment g., § 4.10 (“In determining 

whether a particular improvement will cause unreasonable damage to the 

servient estate, aesthetics and the character of the property are important 

concerns. . . . A use that is reasonable when both dominant and servient estates 

are agricultural in character may become unreasonable when they have become 

suburban.”). 

[16] When construing an instrument granting an easement, the trial court must 

ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties. McCauley, 928 N.E.2d at 

314. Any doubt or uncertainty as to the construction of the language of the 

easement will ordinarily be construed in favor of the grantee. Id. at 315 (citing 

Metcalf, 644 N.E.2d at 601). 

[17] To the extent the Newforths do not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact or 

conclusions, including those regarding Bault’s proposed design of the access 

drives, we do not disturb those findings and conclusions. 

[18] We observe, and the parties do not disagree, that the southern boundary of the 

Bault Property coincides with the northern boundary of the Easement Area. As 

such, the gravel access drives requested by Bault are located either on his own 

property or in the Easement Area and do not extend onto any property of the 

Newforths which is not subject to the Easement. The court found that,

pursuant to the Easement, Bault has the right to use the entire 0.88-acre, fiftyfoot-wide strip. The language of the granting instruments does not restrict the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 13 of 20

width of the Access Road or limit the installation of drives which would 

connect the benefited parcels to the Access Road and allow vehicles to cross 

over the ditch or culvert. The Easement does not benefit the Newforth Property

alone, which is clear from the instruments recorded prior to the Newforths’

2011 acquisition of their property. The Franklin Deed was recorded in 1998, 

the Tucker Deed was recorded in 2006, and the Easement is depicted on the 

2000 plat and 2009 amended plat of Franklin Industrial Park. Moreover, the 

2011 Newforth Deed expressly states that the 0.88-acre Easement Area is 

subject to the Easement “for the benefit of the 19.55 acre tract and the adjacent 

parcels abutting the easement” as shown on the plat recorded in December 2000. 

See Exhibit 5 (emphases added). On appeal, the Newforths do not challenge the 

trial court’s rulings that Bault is granted access to his property from the 

Easement Area and that the installation of a drive over the ditch or culvert 

makes the grant effectual. Rather, the Newforths appear to limit their argument 

to Bault’s use of the Checkered Racing Parcel to access the Northern Bault 

Parcels and the installation of a second access drive and the fifteen-foot western 

aprons. 

[19] With respect to access to the Northern Bault Parcels, the trial court found: 

The Court finds Bault’s rights under the [Easement] include the 

right to utilize the [Easement] and Access Road for vehicular 

access by his heavy equipment vehicles to and from Bault’s 

Northern Parcels via the Checkered Racing Parcel for as long as 

the current owner of the Checkered Racing Parcel allows such 

access to his property. The Court finds neither the [Easement], 

nor the principles and case law cited above, prohibit or restrict 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 14 of 20

Bault from utilizing the [Easement] and Access Road for this 

purpose. If Bault could access his Northern Parcels from his own 

land in the Franklin Industrial Park, it is hard to imagine that he 

would not be allowed to do so directly instead being forced to 

leave out the Newforth easement and going around on SR 43 to 

access the parcels from the SR itself. While Bault could not force 

Newforth to allow Bault to build an access solely for the purpose 

of accessing his Northern Parcels, once such an access is built, 

there is nothing the Court can find that states Bault cannot use 

the access road and area with permission of the owner of the 

property so accessed. 

Appellants’ Appendix Volume 2 at 33-34. The court also found, and the 

Newforths do not dispute, that vehicular access between the Bault Property and

the Northern Bault Parcels “via the Checkered Racing Parcel and the Access 

Road would enable Bault to keep his slow-moving heavy equipment off of S.R. 

43, and would allow Bault to travel more safely and efficiently,” “[t]he presence 

of slow-moving heavy equipment on S.R. 43 impedes the flow of traffic on S.R. 

43, and presents a potential risk to driver safety on S.R. 43,” and “[f]rom a 

traffic flow and safety standpoint, it is preferable for slow-moving heavy 

equipment to avoid S.R. 43 and use an alternative route, such as the Access 

Road and the Checkered Racing Parcel.” Id. at 20-21. 

[20] The Easement Area abuts both the Checkered Racing Parcel and the Bault 

Property. To the extent Bault’s agreement with Checkered Racing may result 

in an increase in the volume of his vehicles using certain portions of the Access 

Road, we observe the terms of the granting instruments do not limit the use of 

the Easement based on the volume or types of vehicles using the Access Road 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 15 of 20

or the relative size or use of the benefited parcels or land adjoining the benefited 

parcels. The granting instruments do not require Bault and Checkered Racing 

to obtain the Newforths’ permission to move vehicles or equipment between 

their properties. 

[21] Also, the trial court found, and the Newforths do not dispute, that Franklin 

Industrial Park “was developed for industrial-type uses” and was originally 

developed around a sawmill which was operated on the Newforth Property, 

that the Newforth Property and the Easement Area are zoned “heavy 

industrial” and the Newforths operate a trash business on their property, that 

the Bault Property is zoned “agricultural” and the Owen County Zoning and 

Subdivision Control Ordinance effective in 2003 identifies “forestry” as a 

permitted use of a parcel zoned agricultural, that mulch is a product of the 

forestry industry and its cultivation is a process within the forestry industry, and 

that other parcels adjacent to the Easement are zoned “light industrial.” Id. at 

15, 17. Neither do the Newforths challenge the court’s findings regarding 

Bault’s use of semi tractor trailers or that the vehicles are an integral part of his 

fleet and necessary to his business. The court found that daily traffic volume on 

the Access Road is steady and that, on one day in 2017, ninety-nine vehicles 

used the Access Road including twenty-six trash trucks belonging to Newforth,

nineteen semi tractor trailers accessing one of the parcels adjacent to the 

Easement Area, and eight heavy equipment vehicles belonging to Bault. The 

court found it is preferable for slow-moving heavy equipment to avoid State 

Road 43 and use a route such as the Access Road and Checkered Racing 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 16 of 20

Parcel. The court’s finding that Bault may access the Northern Bault Parcels 

using the Easement and the Checkered Racing Parcel, for as long as the owner 

of the Checkered Racing Parcel allows such access, is not clearly erroneous. 

[22] With respect to the installation of a second drive and the western aprons, the 

trial court found in part: 

82. The Court finds that Bault established by clear and 

convincing evidence that a total of two (2) Access Areas are 

reasonably necessary to promote safety and facilitate traffic flow 

both in the Access Road and in the Access Areas. The Court 

finds that the evidence established that a second Access Area 

allows vehicles to enter the Bault Property whenever the first 

Access Area is blocked or impeded by a vehicle, which facilitates 

traffic flow on the Access Road and prevents vehicles from 

backing up on the Access Road and potentially S.R. 43. It 

became clear that a second Access Area is especially important 

considering the proximity of the Bault Property to S.R 43, the 

size and wide turning radius of Semi’s, and because drivers 

sometimes park their Semi’s in a driveway while asking for 

parking instructions. 

83. The Court finds that Bault established by clear and 

convincing evidence that a second Access Area promotes more 

efficient internal traffic flow on the Bault Property, creates less 

physical stress on the Semi’s and their tires, and allows Bault to 

store approximately two hundred (200) additional fifty-three foot 

(53’) trailer loads of mulch material on the Bault Property. 

Id. at 36. As for the western aprons, the court found that “a west apron of 

fifteen feet (15’) of minimum width is reasonably necessary for Bault’s heavy 

equipment vehicles to safely and sufficiently exit the Bault property to the west 

toward the Checkered Racing Parcel and Bault’s Northern Parcels at all times 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 17 of 20

of day and in all weather conditions.” Id. at 35. It also found that the total 

width of the drives allows semi tractor trailers to enter the Bault Property 

without having to swing into the oncoming lane of traffic in the Access Road or 

an access area which would present a safety risk and traffic conflicts. 

[23] The evidence before the trial court supports its findings. Bault testified that he 

stores and grinds raw material into mulch, and that he purchased the Bault 

Property because he needed additional space to store bark inventory and 

process mulch. He stated that, when he runs out of room, he drives on the 

mulch and piles it high, which causes the mulch to become more compact and 

does not allow the material to breathe so heat does not escape and it burns. He 

stated that he uses wide rows with spaces between them and that the rows allow 

him to access, rotate, and turn over the mulch. He further indicated his plans to 

have a pond for irrigation on the northern part of his property which could be 

used for dyeing mulch or to extinguish fires. Bault stated that he could store 

approximately two hundred additional loads of mulch if he had a second drive, 

and that, with two drives, “I can bring my mulch, my raw material farther to 

him down the property so that I don’t have to go all the way and turn around 

and go back out.” Transcript Volume I at 149. 

[24] Bault testified that “U-turns on trucks are hard,” “we call it screwing a trailer in 

the ground,” and that a second drive would avoid requiring a vehicle to back

up. Id. at 167. He testified that it is damaging to drive through the ditch at an 

angle, that he planned to install culvert pipes to preserve the flow of water if any 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 18 of 20

in the ditch, and that he would pay to install and maintain the drives and the 

culvert. 

[25] Sheila Reeves, the office manager at the Owen County Health and Building 

Department, testified that, from a planning and zoning standpoint, the use of 

semi tractor trailers at Franklin Industrial Park is foreseeable, Bault’s 

installation of two drives is permissible in the Park under the 2003 ordinance, 

Bault’s anticipated volume of semi tractor trailer loads in and out of the 

property is permissible, and Bault’s intended use of his property is consistent 

with the purpose and present use of the Park and the 2003 ordinance. 

[26] Bault also presented the testimony of Jeromy Grenard, a transportation 

engineer, who presented a design for the two access areas. Grenard indicated 

that the purpose of the aprons is for larger vehicles to negotiate turns into and 

out of the drives, the aprons are important for a larger vehicle which has a 

larger turning radius, and it is more important for narrow roads because there is 

not as much negotiation space available for a driver. He testified that there 

needs to be two drives for the maneuverability of multiple vehicles onto and off 

of the Bault Property from the Access Road and that there needs to be a fortyfive-foot apron on the east side of the drives and a fifteen-foot apron on the west 

side of the drives. He testified that, in designing the drives, he used a software 

program standard in the transportation industry and that the software models 

the turning path, or swept path, of a selected vehicle based on the vehicle’s 

design including its width, number of axles, distance between axles, and king 

pin location or hinge point. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 19 of 20

Conclusion

[27] There is no question that the Easement was intended to benefit the Bault 

Property and that, as the Easement Area and the Bault Property share a 

boundary, Bault’s proposed drives are situated within the Easement Area and 

do not extend onto any property of the Newforths not subject to the Easement. 

The Easement was recorded in the 1998 Franklin Deed, the 2006 Tucker Deed, 

the 2011 Newforth Deed, and the 2016 Bault Deed, and it is depicted on the 

2000 plat and 2009 amended plat of Franklin Industrial Park. Bault presented 

extensive testimony and evidence supporting the trial court’s findings regarding 

Franklin Industrial Park, the impact of Bault’s proposed drives, his access to the 

Northern Bault Parcels, and the installation of a second drive and the fifteenfoot aprons. 

[28] Based upon the evidence as set forth above and in the record, and noting we do 

not reweigh the evidence and consider the evidence most favorable to the 

judgment, we conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. 

See Rehl, 963 N.E.2d at 8 (holding the trial court did not err in entering findings 

related to the relative use or increased use of the area of an easement and noting 

that the parties presented evidence of the use and changes in the use of the 

easement area) (citing McCauley, 928 N.E.2d at 315 (holding that the trial court

properly concluded the easement holders had the right to use the easement in its 

entirety and to construct a roadway over all or any part of the easement)). 

[29] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 60A05-1712-PL-2969 | March 6, 2019 Page 20 of 20

[30] Affirmed. 

Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.