Blanton v. Eskridge, 2017 Ohio 8991

Gordan and Sandra Blanton sued Glenn and Donita Eskridge claiming easements (originally both prescriptive and by necessity) across a strip of land on the Eskridges’ western boundary that the Blantons use to access their parcel.
The Blantons’ parcel became landlocked in 1962 after the State of Ohio appropriated ~8 acres for construction of limited-access U.S. Route 52; the State compensated the predecessors for the taking and for damage to the residue.
The Blantons purchased the property in 2011; less than a year later the Eskridges (through counsel) sent a cease-and-desist forbidding passage across their land.
Trial evidence included local testimony claiming an historic roadbed across Eskridge land and survey/aerial-map evidence (1930–2011) introduced by the Eskridges disputing existence of any historic roadway and showing no unity of title.
At trial the Blantons abandoned their prescriptive-easement claim and argued only for an easement by necessity; the trial court granted the easement by necessity.
The Fourth District reversed, finding the Blantons failed to prove the required elements for an implied easement of necessity—most critically, prior unity of ownership (unity of title) and strict necessity at the time of severance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blantons established an easement by necessity over Eskridge land	Blantons: their parcel is landlocked and they are entitled to an implied easement of necessity for ingress/egress across the Eskridges’ strip	Eskridges: Blantons failed to prove required elements—no prior unity of title and any necessity arose only after State appropriation	Court reversed: Blantons failed to prove severance/unity of title by clear and convincing evidence; easement by necessity not established

Cadwallader v. Scovanner, 896 N.E.2d 748 (Ohio Ct. App.) (burden to prove easement by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Eppinger, 743 N.E.2d 881 (Ohio 2000) (definition of "clear and convincing" standard)
State v. Schiebel, 564 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1990) (discussing proof standards)
Fitzpatrick v. Palmer, 926 N.E.2d 651 (Ohio Ct. App.) (framework for easement types and implied easements)
Trattar v. Rausch, 95 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio 1950) (elements for implied easement; permanence/continuity requirement)
Tiller v. Hinton, 482 N.E.2d 946 (Ohio 1985) (stringent requirements for implied easements)
Ciski v. Wentworth, 172 N.E. 276 (Ohio 1930) (favoring written instruments; implied easements disfavored)