## Facts

- Harold and Maxine Haviland owned a residential lot in Indianapolis at a lower elevation than an adjoining commercial parcel owned by Steve and Anna Argyelan.
- The general drainage pattern in the area carried surface water southward along Auburn Street toward a creek/ditch; during heavy flow, water sometimes overflowed into adjacent yards.
- After purchasing their parcel, the Argyelans rezoned and developed it for commercial use, constructing two buildings (completed in 1971 and 1974).
- The Argyelans raised the grade of their land about two feet with fill, built a retaining wall about one foot inside their property line, and later placed a chain-link fence atop the wall.
- The second building had three downspouts; two discharged toward the south and one discharged via a plastic pipe to the east. The downspout components were ordinary.
- The area between the second building and the wall was crushed stone; much of the remaining lot was paved, with drainage generally to the south and east.
- The Havilands alleged the development increased the volume and velocity of surface water runoff reaching their property and caused substantial damage.
- The record did not show that the Argyelans collected surface water and discharged it onto the Haviland property in a concentrated channel or “cast” it in a body; the evidence showed only increased runoff consistent with natural drainage direction.

## Issues

1. Under Indiana’s common-enemy doctrine, whether a landowner is liable for damage to a lower adjoining parcel when lawful improvements increase the volume and speed of surface-water runoff in the natural direction, absent proof of concentrated discharge, diversion by artificial channel, malice, or negligence.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to resolve conflicting appellate interpretations regarding the governing surface-water doctrine.
- The Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion but agreed with the ultimate result that the evidence did not support liability.
- The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment for the Havilands and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the Argyelans.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana follows the common-enemy rule for surface water: each landowner may protect and improve land even if doing so increases surface-water flow onto neighboring land in the natural drainage direction.
- A landowner incurs liability for surface-water damage only when the owner:
  - collects or concentrates surface water and discharges it upon a neighbor in a body or through a channel,
  - diverts water by artificial means into a new course, or
  - acts maliciously or negligently in a manner that directly invades or damages neighboring property.
- Indiana rejected a broad “reasonable use” balancing approach for surface-water disputes; the common-enemy rule with its traditional exceptions governs.

## Conclusion

The court held that increased runoff caused by ordinary, lawful commercial improvements that merely hasten or enlarge surface-water flow in its natural direction is not actionable under Indiana law without proof of concentrated discharge, diversion, or malicious or negligent conduct, and it ordered judgment for the defendants.


Argyelan v. Haviland, 435 N.E.2d 973 (Ind. 1982)