2013 Ohio 4963
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2003 Timothy Covert purchased 8829 Mayfield Rd. from Margaret Lahner, whose adjacent parcel (8825) was used for access; the purchase agreement referenced an attached easement that was not actually attached.
- A document labeled a "License Agreement" was signed with the deed on September 25, 2003; it described a "perpetual" right-of-way, stated it would "run with the parcels," allocated maintenance costs, and was recorded with the deed.
- Attorney who prepared the instruments testified the parties were told an easement would require a planning-commission hearing and they declined, so a license (later drafts alternately called easement or license) was used.
- Covert paved the driveway, installed lighting and structures, and relied on the recorded document and purchase agreement; Lahner contends she intended only a license limited to the parties’ ownership and did not intend a perpetual easement.
- Trial court concluded the recorded document was neither a valid license nor easement, declared it void, allowed Covert to use the driveway only until a specified date, and found certain improvements to be trespasses requiring removal.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the recorded instrument constituted at least a license coupled with an interest (effectively an easement) and/or an easement by estoppel; remanded to determine the location/dimensions of the easement and for further proceedings on scope/relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dalliance / Lahner) | Defendant's Argument (Covert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recorded instrument is void and unenforceable | The instrument is a license and cannot be irrevocable or run with the land; therefore it cannot create an easement | The document grants a perpetual right to use the driveway and runs with the land; it is an express easement | The court held the instrument had the attributes of an irrevocable license / easement and was not void; trial court erred in voiding it |
| Whether an express easement exists despite form/labeling | The parties did not complete formal easement procedures (planning commission), so no valid easement exists | The recorded writing grants a perpetual right and should be enforced as an express easement | The appellate court treated the instrument as at least a license coupled with an interest (equivalent to an easement) based on intent and recorded writing |
| Whether an easement by estoppel arises from improvements | No estoppel: Lahner did not mislead or consent to a permanent right | Covert relied on written promises and the recorded instrument, spent money improving the driveway | The court found sufficient equitable grounds for easement by estoppel given the recorded promises and Covert’s reliance and improvements |
| Remedy / scope: whether Covert’s access can be terminated and what area is covered | Terminate access because instrument invalid; limit use | Access should continue; define easement except as to trespass items | Court reversed termination; remanded to determine precise location/dimensions of the easement and further proceedings on scope/relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (2008) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Pence v. Darst, 62 Ohio App.3d 32 (1989) (express easement requires grant of right to use servient estate)
- Mosher v. Cook, 62 Ohio St.2d 316 (1980) (license generally terminable at licensor’s will)
- Kamenar R.R. Salvage, Inc. v. Ohio Edison Co., 79 Ohio App.3d 685 (1992) (license coupled with an interest may be irrevocable and treated as an easement)
- Prymas v. Kassai, 168 Ohio App.3d 123 (2006) (evidence of negotiations and promises can support easement by estoppel)
- Monroe Bowling Lanes v. Woodsfield Livestock Sales, 17 Ohio App.2d 146 (1969) (owner estopped from denying easement when another expends money in reliance)