Filed: 5/3/2019 11:05 AM

Monroe Circuit Court 6

Monroe County, Indiana

STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT

) SS:
COLINTY OF MONROE ) CAUSE NO.: 53C06-1 804-PL-000755

MICHAEL O. CAIN and

LINDA A. RAYMOND
Plaintiffs,
vs.

WILLIAM J. HUFF, II REVOCABLE

TRUST DECLARATION, Dated June 28, 2071, and
NICOLE E. HUFF REVOCABLE
TRUST DECLARATION, Dated June 28, 2011
Defendants.

LOUIS MATAYA
Intervening Plaintiff
VS.

WILLIAM J. HUFF, II REVOCABLE

TRUST DECLARATION, Dated June 28, 2011, and
NICOLE E. HUFF REVOCABLE
TRUST DECLARATION, Dated June 28, 201 |
Defendants.

VERIFIED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJT]NCTION

Plaintiffs, Michael O. Cain and Linda A. Raymond, by counsel, CarminParker, PC, move

the Courl to set Plaintiffs' Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction for hearing at the earliest

available date on the Court's docket and to issue a preliminary injunction pending trial on the

merits of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief, and in support of

this motion state:

1. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive

Relief seeking a declaratory judgment determining the rights granted to Defendants as owner of

real estate adjacent to Plaintiffs' real estate under the terms of a Grant of Easements and the

Grant of Easements do not authorize ingress and egress or use of the easements by Defendants
for commercial logging activities or for any other activity on the real estate owned by

Defendants except for the construction, development and use of single family residential

structures, guests and caretaker quafters and other buildings attendant thereto on the Defendants'

real estate.

2. Previously in prior hearings in this cause, the Court had determined that the Grant

of Easements at issue restricted the use of the easements by Defendants through Plaintiff s

property to the construction, development and use of single-family residential structures on

Defendants' real estate.

3. The Grant of Easements document construed by the Court specifically identifies

i93 acres of real estate as more specifically described in the Grant of Easements.

4. Subsequent to prior hearings in this cause, Defendants have extended their

activities and are now engaged in commercial logging and other activities on real estate adjacent

to the real estate owned by Defendants, but real estate which is not described in and is not

benefited by the Grant of Easements.

5. Defendants have and continue to trespass on Plaintiff s real estate by using the

private roads and easements for ingress and egress to real estate that is not identified in, and

which is not benefited from the Grant of Easements.

6. Unless restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to perform the acts

sought to be enjoined by continuing to trespass upon Plaintiff s real estate, to cause heavy

equipment, trucks, logging equipment and associated vehicles to pass over and through and

thereby trespass on Plaintiff s real estate.

7. As previously found by this Court, Defendant's activities in using the easements

constitutes an immediate and reparable harm to Plaintiffs.

 8. This Court previously found facts that Defendants use of the easements was

restricted by the terms of the Grant of Easements not only in the character of use but that the

easements benefitted only the 193 acres described in the Grant of Easements.

9. Defendants' actions in extending their trespass and use of the easements to land

not benefiting from the Grant of Easements is unauthorized and is contrary to the facts found in

this Court's prior restraining order.

10. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Court of Appeals found the prior restraining order

overly broad, which matter remains under review, but nevertheless, the Court's findings of

immediate irreparable harm from the use of the easements was not vacated by the Court of

Appeals.

11. The Court's finding that the Grant of Easements restricted use of the easements to

construction, development and use of single-family residential structures on specifically

identified real estate as described in the Grant of Easements was not vacated by the Court of

Appeals.

12. That Defendants have extended their unauthorized use of the easements to

additional real estate not described in the Grant of Easements is an unlawful expansion of the

Grant of Easements.

13. The actions of Defendants will result in immediate and irreparable harm to

Plaintiffs as is more fully described in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

14. The harm to Plaintiffs, if iniunctive relief is not granted, outweighs the harm to

Defendants if this motion is granted.

15. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and the interest of the public will not be

disserved by granting Plaintiffs' motion.

 16. A preliminary injunction is necessary to preserve the sktus quo until the issues

raised by Plaintiffs' Complaint can be fully determined and is appropriate because Plaintiffs are

likely to prevail on the merits of their claim.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, by counsel, request the Court to set an immediate hearing to

determine Plaintiffs' Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and to issue a preliminary

injunction enjoining Defendants and any persons claiming through or under Defendants from

trespassing upon Plaintiff s real estate and use of the easements on Plaintiff s real estate for

ingress or egress to or any activity occurring on real estate owned by Defendants adjacent to the

real estate described in the Grant of Easements, and for all other and proper relief.

Respectfu lly submitted,

CARMINPARKER, PC

is/ Dqniel M. C:tr

Daniel M. Cyr
Attorney for Plaintiff

The undersigned swears or affirms under the penalties for perjury that the facts and

matters set forth in the above and foregoing Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction are true

and corectthis fL day of May,2019

Michael O. Cain
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the above and foregoing was duly served
thisful day of May 20l9,via efiling service, addressed to:

Thomas R. Malapit, Jr.

Joshua A. Brown
Barry A. Hall
McKINNEY & MALAPIT LAW
tom@mandmlegal.com
iosh@mandmle sal.com
drew@mandmlegal.com

/s/ Daniel M. Cyr

Daniel M. Cyr

Michael L. Carmin, #12331-53

Daniel M. Cyr, #32555-53
CARMINPARKER, PC
116 W. 6th Street, Suite 200
P.O. Box 2639
Bloomington, Indiana 47 402-2639
Telephone: (812) 332-6556

414242 I 24110-l