Aurora Partners III., Ltd. v. Aurora
2013 Ohio 4310
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Aurora Partners III, Ltd. owns a 7-acre parcel with access from Aurora Road; paved road crosses the parcel toward appellee’s service center.
- Appellee City of Aurora claims an ingress/egress easement by deed and related documents dating to 1933 and 1961.
- In 1973, the parties executed an agreement granting appellee a permanent easement for a driveway, recorded in 1979.
- Road usage increased after paving (2003–2004); Caplan alleges lack of appellant consent and altered property use.
- Trial court granted summary judgment that appellee has a permanent easement in the paved roadway; appellate affirmance followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence/location of ingress/egress easement over the land. | Hejduk shows easement only 15’ wide, north of the parcel. | 1973 agreement grants a permanent easement at the roadway’s present location. | No genuine issue; appellee possesses a permanent easement at the paved roadway. |
| Whether sovereign immunity applies to trespass/taking claims. | Immunity bars the claims under R.C. 2744. | Immunity would apply unless an exception/defense applies; here none do. | Immunity analysis moot because easement exists and governs use. |
Key Cases Cited
- H & S Company, Ltd. v. Aurora, 2004-Ohio-3507 (11th Dist. Portage No. 2003-P-0104) (easement description may be inferred from conveyance language and circumstances)
- Roebuck v. Columbia Gas Transm. Corp., 57 Ohio App.2d 217 (3d Dist.1977) (describes metes-and-bounds sufficiency and extrinsic evidence to locate an easement)
- Pomante v. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line LLC, 2010-Ohio-1823 (10th Dist.) (location of easement may be ascertained from conveyance language and circumstances)
- Amsbary v. Little, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1186 (4th Dist.) (implied/equitable extent of easements)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (1980) (summary-judgment standard; weigh evidence prohibition)