Bailey v. George, 2017 Ohio 767

David A. Bailey sued Patrick A. George and others (the Georges) to quiet title (alternatively for a prescriptive easement) to a 12 x 154 ft strip along the parties’ adjoining properties, claiming title by adverse possession.
Bailey traced continuous use by him and his predecessors from 1959; he acquired title in 1994 via quit-claim from his parents, who bought the property in 1955. The Georges purchased their parcel in 2001.
Bailey supported summary judgment with affidavits (himself, family members, partner) and a survey showing open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and adverse use including clearing, tree trimming, grading, storage, and preventing others’ use for over 21 years.
The Georges opposed with affidavits describing the strip as overgrown in 2001 and later use by tenants (2008–2012); they produced no evidence covering 1959–2001.
The trial court granted Bailey summary judgment; the court of appeals affirmed, finding Bailey proved all elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence and the Georges failed to raise genuine factual disputes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bailey acquired title by adverse possession	Bailey: he and predecessors openly, notoriously, exclusively, adversely, and continuously used the strip from 1959 for >21 years	Georges: their record interest vested earlier; factual disputes exist about use and timing	Held for Bailey: elements proven by clear and convincing evidence; title quieted in Bailey
Adversity (hostile/nonpermissive use)	Use was nonpermissive; no permission requested or granted	Georges: Bailey’s affidavits are self-serving and show mere maintenance	Held: use was adverse — objective acts (clearing, grading, preventing others) show nonpermissive intent
Open and notorious use	Bailey: visible alterations and maintenance changed terrain and were within view of neighbors	Georges: contend the strip was overgrown when they bought in 2001 and present evidence of later uses	Held: Bailey’s evidence of visible, long-term use (1959–2001) undisputed; open and notorious established
Continuous and exclusive use for statutory period	Bailey: privity with predecessors allows aggregation to satisfy 21-year requirement (1959–≥1980)	Georges: later use/occupation shows contest; challenge Bailey’s credibility	Held: continuous, exclusive use satisfied for >21 years; later Georges’ evidence post-dates the statutory period and does not create a genuine issue of material fact

Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (Ohio 1998) (elements of adverse possession; permissive use defeats adversity)
State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158 (Ohio 2001) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Zipf v. Dalgarn, 114 Ohio St. 291 (Ohio 1926) (tacking/privity for adverse possession periods)
Kimball v. Anderson, 125 Ohio St. 241 (Ohio 1927) (adversity defined as use inconsistent with owner’s rights)
Lane v. Kennedy, 13 Ohio St. 42 (Ohio 1861) (manifestation of claim by acts or declarations supports presumption of title transfer)
Evanich v. Bridge, 119 Ohio St.3d 260 (Ohio 2008) (adversity is judged objectively)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s initial summary judgment burden and nonmovant’s reciprocal burden)
Ochsenbine v. Cadiz, 166 Ohio App.3d 719 (7th Dist. 2005) (moving party may rely on self‑serving affidavits for summary judgment)