Constance R. Samplawski v. Anchor Land Management, LLC

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 25A-PL-01210
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Nov 04 2025, 8:53 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Constance Samplawski, Appellant-Defendant

v.

Anchor Land Management, LLC, Appellee-Plaintiff

November 4, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-PL-1210 Appeal from the Porter Superior Court The Honorable Rebecca Buitendorp, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 64D05-2504-PL-3996

Opinion by Judge May Judges Mathias and Bradford concur.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 1 of 14 [1] Constance Samplawski appeals the trial court’s order granting Anchor Land

Management, LLC, (“Anchor”) a preliminary injunction that prohibits

Samplawski from blocking Anchor’s use of an easement over her property.

Samplawski presents one issue for our review, which we revise and restate as

whether the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded Anchor

established a reasonable likelihood of success at trial and granted the

preliminary injunction. We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 2 of 14 Facts and Procedural History [2] This case involves four pieces of property as depicted in the image below:

(Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 32.)

[3] The first parcel is 6982 Melton Road in Porter County, Indiana (depicted as

“PLANTIFF’S PARCEL” in the diagram above) which is the “Servient Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 3 of 14 Estate.” The second parcel is 6990 Melton Road, the landlocked property

directly north of the Servient Estate (depicted as the green outlined portion of

“DEFENDANT’S PARCELS” in the diagram above) which is the “Dominant

Estate.” The third parcel is 397 Melton Road which lies directly east of both of

those properties and is the “Steel Cities Estate.” Finally, north of the Steel

Cities Estate and meeting the Dominant Estate at its northeast corner, is 1172

Salt Lake Road (the “Salt Creek Property”), which together with the Dominant

Estate comprise “Defendant’s Parcels.”

[4] Samplawski owns the Servient Estate, but prior to Samplawski obtaining

ownership of the Servient Estate, the owner of the Servient Estate granted an

easement to the owner of the Dominant Estate. The document granting the

easement provided the easement “shall run with the land and continue so long

as it may be necessary and required for ingress and egress to and from [the

Dominant Estate] after which it will cease and com[e to] an end.” (Appellant’s

App. Vol. 2 at 18.)

[5] At some point, Greater NW Investments, Inc. (“GNWI”) obtained ownership

of Defendant’s Parcels. Steel Cities Steel, Inc. (“Steel Cities”) owns the Steel

Cities Estate, and in July 2021, Steel Cities sued GNWI under Cause Number

64D02-2107-PL-006125 (“Cause 6125”). In its complaint, Steel Cities asserted

GNWI continually trespassed by cutting across the northwest corner of the

Steel Cities Estate to travel between Defendant’s Parcels. Steel Cities also

asserted GNWI had removed trees, shrubs, and foliage from the Steel Cities

Estate without authorization and deposited trash on the property. GNWI

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 4 of 14 counterclaimed arguing it had a prescriptive easement to travel over the Steel

Cities Estate. Before these proceedings were resolved, Anchor purchased

Defendant’s Parcels from GNWI, but Steel Cities never substituted Anchor for

GNWI in Cause 6125. After Anchor’s purchase of Defendant’s Parcels,

representatives from Anchor and Steel Cities met several times. Anchor

promised to be a “good neighbor,” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 26), and Steel Cities allowed

Anchor to use the northwest corner of the Steel Cities Estate to travel between

Defendant’s Parcels. On December 13, 2023, GNWI and Steel Cities filed a

joint stipulation of dismissal in Cause 6125, and the trial court dismissed Cause

6125 with prejudice.

[6] On April 11, 2025, Samplawski filed suit against Anchor alleging the easement

was no longer valid because “[t]he dominant estate for which the easement of

necessity burdening Plaintiff’s Property was created is no longer land-locked.”

(Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 14.) Samplawski sought a declaratory judgment

vacating the easement across the Servient Estate, an injunction prohibiting

Anchor from continuing to use the easement, and money damages. On April

27, 2025, Anchor filed a verified motion requesting a temporary restraining

order and a preliminary injunction hearing. The motion asserted Samplawski

“erected barricades with bricks, hazard tape, and garbage receptacles” to block

Anchor’s use of the easement. (Id. at 23.) Anchor asserted it had “no other

legal access to the Dominant Estate, but for the Easement.” (Id.) It asked the

trial court to prohibit Samplawski from blocking Anchor’s use of the easement.

Samplawski opposed the request for a temporary restraining order. She argued

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 5 of 14 Anchor “and all of its tenants, can ingress and egress from the ‘Dominant

Estate’, [sic] to Salt Creek Road, and the easement has expired, as there is no

longer a need to ingress and egress from Melton Road, as Salt Creek Road

provides alternative ingress and egress.” (Id. at 36.)

[7] On May 1, 2025, the trial court granted Anchor’s request for a temporary

restraining order and set a hearing on Anchor’s request for a preliminary

injunction to occur on May 9, 2025. At the preliminary injunction hearing,

Samplawski argued the easement expired because Anchor has “an alternate

ingress and egress” from the Dominant Estate. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 6.) She asserted

individuals could travel to and from the Dominant Estate by going over the

Steel Cities Estate to travel between the Dominant Estate and the Salt Creek

Property. Samplawski argued Steel Cities “dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the

gate and gravel road was a trespass with prejudice. No one can ever claim that

to be a trespass ever again. The lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice.”

(Id. at 5.) James Snyder, a representative of Anchor, testified that Anchor’s

ability to travel over the Steel Cities Estate was solely because of the “good

graces of Steel Cities” and not permanent. (Id. at 27.) He explained Anchor

did not have an easement over the Steel Cities Estate and that Anchor “didn’t

purchase any access” over the Steel Cities Estate. (Id. at 37.). Snyder stated

Anchor still required use of the easement over the Servient Estate for ingress

and egress from the Dominant Estate.

[8] On May 16, 2025, the trial court issued an order granting Anchor’s request for a

preliminary injunction. The trial court found:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 6 of 14 11. There is no easement to access [the Dominant Estate], other than the easement on the Plaintiff’s property.

*****

15. The Plaintiff asserts that because [Steel Cities] claimed trespass by Greater NW Investments, Inc. onto their property and then dismissed that claim with prejudice, Steel Cities Steel and Marianne Vangle[ 1] are now forever precluded from claiming trespass upon their parcel.

16. The Court finds this argument is without merit.

20. Presently, Steel Cities Steel and Marianne Vangle had the right to deny Greater NW Investments, Inc. presence and/or use of their land. Upon the sale of the property located at 1172 Salt Creek Road, Steel Cities Steel and Marianne Vangle were well within their right to abandon claim of trespass against Greater NW Investments, Inc. as Greater NW Investments, Inc. would no longer remain on the property located at 1172 Salt Creek Road.

21. The Plaintiff encourages the court to find the abandonment of the lawsuit by Steel Cities Steel and Marianne Vangle against Greater NW Investments, Inc.’s encroachment and unauthorized use of Steel Cities Steel and Mariane Vangle’s property has

1 Marianne Vangel is a trustee of a trust with an ownership interest in Steel Cities.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 7 of 14 precluded Steel Cities Steel and Marianne Vangle from ever claiming trespass again.

22. Such a finding would strip a property owner of their inherent rights as owner to consent or deny access and use of their property, and the court declines to accept this interpretation of the consequences to abandoning a lawsuit against Greater NW Investments, Inc.

25. Presently, no permissive use by Anchor Land Management has been shown to have ripened into title. Furthermore, permissive use has not been defined or delineated by either Anchor Land Management or Steel Cities Steel and Marianne Vangle leaving Anchor Land Management without recourse regarding use of Steel Cities Steel and Marianne Vangle property.

26. Therefore, the Court finds the easement on the Plaintiff’s property remains necessary.

27. The Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Injunctive Relief, and ORDERS the Plaintiff to refrain from blockading access to the easement for use at 6990 Melton Road and to refrain from interference of use by those accessing 6990 Melton Road.

(Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 9-10) (emphases in original) (footnote added).

Discussion and Decision [9] Samplawski challenges the trial court’s order granting Anchor’s motion for a

preliminary injunction preventing Samplawski from blocking Anchor’s use of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 8 of 14 the easement. “The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction rests in the

sound discretion of the trial court, and thus we limit our review to whether

there was an abuse of that discretion.” Perry Cnty. v. Huck, 263 N.E.3d 138, 141

(Ind. 2025). “When determining whether or not to grant a preliminary

injunction, the trial court is required to make special findings of fact and state

its conclusions thereon.” Barlow v. Sipes, 744 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001),

trans. denied. To determine whether an abuse of discretion occurred, we

consider whether the evidence supports the trial court’s findings and whether

the findings support the judgment. Perry Cnty., 263 N.E.3d at 141. “We will

reverse the trial court’s judgment only when it is clearly erroneous, and a

judgment is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us with a firm

conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. The party seeking a preliminary

injunction must meet a high burden. Id.

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) it has a reasonable likelihood of success at trial, (2) its remedies at law are inadequate and it is at risk of irreparable harm unless an injunction is issued, (3) its threatened injury outweighs the potential harm of granting the injunction, and (4) the public interest would not be disserved.

Id. A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a

preliminary injunction if the moving party has not satisfied all four of the

requirements. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 9 of 14 [10] Samplawski argues the trial court erred when it found Anchor satisfied the

requirement of a reasonable likelihood of success at trial. She asserts res

judicata bars Steel Cities from prohibiting Anchor from trespassing over its

property, and therefore, the easement over her property has expired because an

alternative means of ingress and egress from the Dominant Estate exists.

“Generally speaking, res judicata operates ‘to prevent repetitious litigation of

disputes that are essentially the same, by holding a prior final judgment binding

against both the original parties and their privies.’” Matter of Eq. W., 124

N.E.3d 1201, 1208 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Becker v. State, 992 N.E.2d 697, 700

(Ind. 2013)). Res judicata is separated into two branches, claim preclusion and

issue preclusion. Id. at 1209. Claim preclusion bars “a successive lawsuit when

‘a particular issue is adjudicated and then put in issue in a subsequent suit on a

different cause of action between the same parties or their privies.’” Id.

(quoting Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n v. Spirited Sales, 79 N.E.3d 371, 381

(Ind. 2017)). The party asserting claim preclusion must satisfy four elements for

the claim to be successful:

(1) The former judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(2) The former judgment must have been rendered on the merits;

(3) The matter now in issue was or might have been determined in the former suit; and

(4) The controversy adjudicated in the former suit must have been between the parties to the present action or their privies.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 10 of 14 Id. “‘[A] ‘privy is one who after rendition of [a] judgment has acquired an

interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment,’ or ‘whose interests are

represented by a party to the action.’” Becker, 992 N.E.2d at 700-701 (quoting

MicroVote Gen. Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 196 (Ind. Ct. App.

2010)) (brackets in Becker).

[11] Samplawski contends:

Anchor, and by default the trial court, ignore the fact that claim preclusion applies a) to both parties and privies to a lawsuit, and b) to claims which were, or could have been, litigated including whether Anchor was now trespassing, instead of Greater NW Investments, LLC. . . . By agreeing to dismiss the suit against Anchor’s privy, Marianne Vangel, as Trustee and Steel Cities Steels can never sue Anchor for trespassing[.]

(Appellant’s Br. at 11) (emphases in original.)

[12] However, the dismissal of a complaint against one party alleging a cause of

action does not prohibit a subsequent lawsuit against the same party alleging

the same cause of action premised on different acts. In Mounts v. Evansville

Redevelopment Commission, the Evansville Redevelopment Commission (“ERC”)

adopted a resolution in 2002 adding properties to an acquisition list of blighted

properties as part of the ERC’s plan to redevelop downtown Evansville. 831

N.E.2d 784, 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. The owners of several

properties on the acquisition list filed suit against the ERC. Id. The ERC and

the property owners then reached an agreement resulting in the removal of the

properties from the acquisition list, and the parties filed a stipulation of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 11 of 14 dismissal with prejudice dismissing the property owners’ suit against the ERC.

Id. at 786-87. In 2004, the ERC adopted another resolution adding some of the

property owners’ properties to the acquisition list. Id. at 787. The property

owners argued the stipulation of dismissal filed in the 2002 lawsuit barred the

ERC from adding their properties to the acquisition list in 2004. Id. at 790.

The trial court rejected that argument, and we affirmed. Id. at 790-91. We

explained:

In Indiana, it is well settled that a dismissal with prejudice is a dismissal on the merits, and as such, it is conclusive of the rights of the parties and res judicata as to the questions that might have been litigated. However, the 2002 dismissal was effectuated before any claims were litigated. We do not believe that such a voluntary dismissal of claims, filed before any questions were litigated, would bar either party from bringing suit on a new ERC resolution passed two years later, even if it were pertaining to the same subject matter. In two years, changed circumstances are certain and prohibiting subsequent action by the ERC regarding the same properties would be unreasonable.

Id. at 791 (internal citation omitted).

[13] Likewise, the stipulation of dismissal in Cause 6125 was filed before any issues

were litigated. While the stipulation of dismissal with prejudice prohibits Steel

Cities from suing for acts of trespass that occurred prior to its filing of Cause

6125, there is nothing preventing Steel Cities from suing for subsequent acts of

trespass. No judicial decree was entered establishing Anchor’s right to use the

Steel Cities Estate to travel between the Defendant’s Parcels. Anchor’s ability

to do so is at the discretion of Steel Cities and can be revoked at any time. As

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 12 of 14 the trial court concluded, a stipulation of dismissal in a suit alleging trespass

does not “strip a property owner of their inherent rights as owner to consent or

deny access and use of their property[.]” (Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 10.) Thus,

Samplawski’s argument that an alternative means of ingress or egress from the

Dominant Estate exists fails because res judicata does not prevent Steel Cities

from prohibiting Anchor from traveling over the Steel Cities Estate when going

between the Defendant’s Parcels. Therefore, we affirm the trial court. 2

Conclusion [14] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded Anchor

established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and entered a

preliminary injunction prohibiting Samplawski from blocking Anchor’s use of

the easement from the Dominant Estate over the Servient Estate. While Steel

Cities currently allows Anchor to travel over the Steel Cities Estate to go

between Defendant’s Parcels, Anchor does not have a legal right to do so and

2 On July 18, 2025, Samplawski filed a motion seeking an award of appellate attorney fees pursuant to Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 66(E), which states we “may assess damages if an appeal, petition, or motion, or response, is frivolous or in bad faith.” On July 29, 2025, Anchor filed its response to Samplawski’s motion for attorney fees and moved for an award of attorney fees for having to respond to Samplawski’s motion for attorney fees. On August 4, 2025, Samplawski filed a motion for leave to submit a reply in support of its motion for attorney fees and attached its proposed reply to its motion. On August 13, 2025, Anchor filed a motion requesting that we take judicial notice of a grievance Samplawski’s counsel filed with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission asserting Anchor counsel’s argument on appeal was so frivolous it violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct and the letter from the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission dismissing the grievance. As Anchor made the prevailing argument, we deny Samplawski’s request for attorney fees. Likewise, we deny Anchor’s request for attorney fees. We also deny as moot Samplawski’s motion for leave to submit a reply in support of her motion for attorney fees. In addition, we deny Anchor’s motion to take judicial notice. While we reviewed the supplemental information submitted with the motion, it was not necessary for our decision.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 13 of 14 requires use of the easement over the Servient Estate. Accordingly, we affirm

the trial court.

[15] Affirmed.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Patrick B. McEuen McEuen Law Office Portage, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Daniel W. Blankenburg Blankenburg Law, LLC Merrillville, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-PL-1210 | November 4, 2025 Page 14 of 14