Carson v. Duff
2017 Ohio 8199
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dispute over a 102.032-acre Fayette County farm; title history showed appellees retained fractional interests due to a defect in the chain of title dating to the 1960s.
- Dwight Duff and successors continuously farmed the tract since 1966; appellants purchased the property in 2012 and claimed the defect was a mistake and sought quiet title and adverse possession.
- Trial court initially granted summary judgment to appellees; this court reversed and remanded for trial because summary judgment standard was improperly applied.
- Bench trial held December 1, 2016, with testimony about a 1966 family meeting allegedly intended to transfer interests via deed swaps; some heirs had no knowledge of the meeting or their interests for decades.
- Trial court denied appellants’ adverse possession claim, finding they (or predecessors) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence overt, unequivocal acts asserting ownership to the exclusion of cotenants.
- Appellants appealed, arguing the denial was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that ouster need not be unequivocal; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants acquired title by adverse possession against cotenants | Carson: continuous exclusive farming, payment of taxes/insurance, and receipt of profits for >21 years establish adverse possession | Duff et al.: possession by one cotenant is presumed for all; no overt acts ousting cotenants were shown | Court: No — appellants failed to show overt, unequivocal acts excluding cotenants; adverse possession not established |
| Whether ouster must be by unequivocal acts to defeat cotenants' title | Carson: prior family arrangements and long exclusive use show intent and notice, so ouster can be inferred | Duff et al.: law requires overt, unequivocal acts to constitute ouster against cotenants regardless of others’ lack of knowledge | Court: Yes — ouster requires overt, unequivocal acts; mere farming, tax payments, rents insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (Ohio 1998) (elements of adverse possession: exclusive, open, notorious, continuous, adverse for 21 years)
- Gill v. Fletcher, 74 Ohio St. 295 (Ohio 1906) (cotenant cannot acquire title by adverse possession absent definite, continuous, and unequivocal acts excluding other cotenants)
- Ferenbaugh v. Ferenbaugh, 104 Ohio St. 556 (Ohio 1922) (possession by one cotenant presumed to be possession by all)
- M'Clung v. Ross, 18 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1820) (silent possession without acts amounting to ouster does not constitute adverse possession)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases mirrors criminal standard)