2026-09-10 · Indiana · Courts

What happened. On 4 February 2025 the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a published opinion splitting a lakefront covenant dispute down the middle. The association won on who may use the waterfront strip. It lost on whether it could require its own approval for what was put there.¹

The case is Linda F. Slavick Trust v. Christmas Lake Properties Association, Inc., No. 24A-PL-1746, decided by Judge Foley with Judges Bailey and Bradford concurring.

The geography, which is the whole case

A 2005 covenant gave exclusive waterfront rights to owners of lots “adjoining the water front.” The landowner argued that its lots qualified, and claimed exclusive use of a strip of ground and an adjoining dock. But between those lots and the lake sat Tract B — common area owned by the association.

The panel read “adjoining” literally:

“Because Tract B lies between the New Lots and the waterfront, the New Lots do not ‘adjoin’ the waterfront, and under the clear and unambiguous language of Section 4(b) of the 2005 Covenants, Landowner was not granted exclusive rights to use and enjoy the Disputed Area.”

No exclusive rights, and no judicial taking. That half of the judgment was affirmed.

Then the same literalism cut the other way

The association had counterclaimed over the landowner installing a chain and poles in the disputed area without architectural approval. Here the covenant's own wording defeated it. The approval requirement was drafted to apply to work on “a Lot.” Tract B is common area. Common area is not a Lot.

So the landowner needed no approval for what it placed there, and the Court of Appeals reversed that portion of the judgment and entered it for the landowner, remanding the case.

1. Linda F. Slavick Trust v. Christmas Lake Properties Ass'n, No. 24A-PL-1746 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2025) (slip op.) ↩
2. Indiana Appellate Courts — published decisions database ↩