Slaughter, J.
We adhere to Indiana’s longstanding common-law rule that relocating a fixed easement requires the consent of all affected estate-holders. And we reject the minority approach, reflected in the Third Restatement of Property (Servitudes), which permits the unilateral relocation of easements if a court finds the proposed relocation is “reasonable”, consistent with the “normal” use and development of the servient estate, and does not adversely affect the dominant estate. Property rights in Indiana are not so flimsy that they may be modified or eliminated if their exercise impedes what is thought to be a more productive or worthwhile use of land. Under Indiana law, such rights may be abridged only with the bargained-for consent of the property owner or through the lawful exercise of eminent domain.
….
At issue here is an easement appurtenant because the easement benefits land. The parties agree that Lot 2 has a utility easement running through Lot 1. DeSpirito owns Lot 2, the dominant estate. Richland owns Lot 1, the servient estate. The easement originated in 1996 when the parcel was subdivided, and the easement was delineated in the plat recording the subdivision. The easement runs with the land and thus survived the changed ownership of both lots. DeSpirito obtained Lot 2 “as shown on the recorded plat thereof”. Likewise, Richland obtained Lot 1 subject to (among other things) “Utility and Drainage easements and setback lines and any amendments thereto as disclosed on the recorded plat of subdivision.”
We disagree. Richland is correct that the plat does not expressly indicate the relative distance of the easement to the boundaries. But the plat is drawn to scale: One-inch equals sixty feet. The plat describes the width of the easement and indicates its path through the lot with two dashed lines. With a ruler, one can determine the distance of the easement to the lot boundaries. These distances are determinable, and the easement’s width is explicitly indicated. The easement is fixed.
Moreover, even if the plat were not drawn to scale, the disputed easement is fixed by practice. “Where the right to an easement is granted without giving definite location and description to it, the exercise of the easement in a particular course or manner, with the consent of both parties, renders it fixed and certain”. Dudgeon v. Bronson, 159 Ind. 562, 565, 64 N.E. 910, 910 (1902). (citation omitted)
In sum, Lot 2 has a utility easement through Lot 1, and its location in the subdivision plat is fixed.
II. Indiana’s common law follows a bright-line rule that is easy to apply, in contrast to the Restatement’s multifactor test, which leads to uncertain results.
- A. Indiana common-law precedent requires all affected parties to consent to the modification of various servitudes.
….
- B. The Restatement approach to relocation agreements is unclear and appears internally inconsistent.
….
III. Indiana’s common-law approach has long been settled, and we see no reason to modify it.
We decline to adopt the Restatement and opt instead to reaffirm Indiana’s common law concerning the relocation of easements: Once an easement’s location is fixed, neither the servient nor dominant estate-older can relocate or modify the easement without the other’s consent. This rule applies to easements by necessity, restrictive covenants, and, relevant here, express easements appurtenant.
For four reasons, we continue to embrace the common-law rule. First, the common-law approach settles the expectations of property owners and honors their bargained-for holdings, ensuring stability in land ownership and property valuation. Second, it avoids the likely flood of litigation that would occur were we to abandon the common law’s bright-line rule and thus inject uncertainty into whether and when the Restatement applies to various scenarios. Third, it avoids having to address whether modifying the common-law rule would effect a judicial taking of private property, triggering an entitlement to just compensation. And, fourth, it likely leads to more efficient economic outcomes than the Restatement.
….
Conclusion
For these reasons, we retain Indiana’s common-law rule prohibiting the unilateral relocation of fixed easements and thus affirm the trial court’s entry of judgment for DeSpirito on his petition for judicial review and against Richland and the Commission.
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, and Goff, JJ., concur.