Preview:

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: RANDY J. WILLIAMS CHERYL M. KNODLE Ball Eggleston PC Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: STUART K. WELIEVER AMY S. CARLSON Henthorn, Harris & Weliever Crawfordsville, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHRISTOPHER CORNETT, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. EVERETT BAMISH and MARY BAMISH, Appellees-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 54A01-0702-CV-109

APPEAL FROM THE MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Thomas K. Milligan, Judge Cause No. 54C01-0505-PL-186

November 30, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

RILEY, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Plaintiff, Christopher Cornett (Cornett), appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees-Defendants, Everett and Mary Bamish (collectively the Bamishes). We reverse and remand for further proceedings. ISSUE Cornett presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the trial court properly applied a six-year statute of limitations to Cornett's action. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Cornett is the owner of a 9.4 acre parcel of land in Montgomery County, Indiana. The Bamishes own real property which abuts the Cornett property. The Central Indiana right-ofway serves as a boundary line between the Cornett and Bamish properties. Cornett owns the northern half and the Bamishes own the southern half of the right-or-way, which is a raised berm. In 1997, the Bamishes installed a fourteen-inch diameter pipe across the right-of-way to drain surface water that would occasionally accumulate on the their property. 1 The pipe was buried into the raised berm and placed so that water would drain into an open waterway on Cornett's side of the right-of-way. Later in 1997, Cornett, sent a letter to the Bamishes explaining that the pipe trespassed over his property and asking them to remove the pipe and repair the property. The pipe was not removed.

1

Other pipes crossing the right-of-way to drain surface water from the Bamish property onto the Cornett property pre-existed the pipe installed in 1997, but Cornett's complaint does not address those pipes.

2

In 2003, Cornett and Everett Bamish noticed flooding of Cornett's property and erosion damage. Cornett attributes flooding of his property and erosion damage to the actions by the Bamishes. On May 19, 2005, Cornett filed a complaint in Montgomery County seeking damages and equitable relief. On December 12, 2006, the Bamishes filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing primarily that Cornett failed to commence the action within the applicable statute of limitations. On January 31, 2007, the trial court applied the six-year statute of limitations codified at I.C.

Download Christopher Cornett v. Everett and Mary Bamish.pdf

Indiana Law