With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". challenging our conclusion that the order was properly recorded and arguing that our holding would fundamentally change title searches in this state. Id. On rehearing, we focused on the nature and origin of the easement. We also examined the general recording statute, Ind. Code § 82-1-2-16, and the subsequently enacted 1905 Highway Act, noting that the former is silent about highway rights-of-way. Id. at 1239. In contrast, the Highway Act made numerous references to the auditor's responsibility to make and maintain the commissioners' records. Id. Ultimately, we concluded that the general recording statute applies to the "conveyance, mortgage or lease of lands" but not to a public highway right-of-way "established by law." Id.; cf. State v. Anderson, 241 Ind. 184, 170 N.E.2d 812 (1960) (<HOLDING>). Here, the easement associated with the

A: holding that purchaser did not take property subject to unrecorded easement created by private agreement
B: holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement
C: holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20
D: recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance
A.