2021 Ohio 1436
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- WES built a wastewater-disposal pipeline in 2015 that crossed two privately owned parcels (Bailey Homestead LLC and Johnson) without recorded written easements.
- WES was placed in receivership in July 2016; Forté obtained and recorded written easements from the landowners in Nov/Dec 2016 (Forté has easements but no pipeline).
- A receivership sale of WES assets occurred Dec 6, 2016; DeepRock purchased the pipeline through that sale (DeepRock became pipeline owner in Jan 2017).
- DeepRock sued seeking declaratory relief (pipeline location, invalidity of Forté’s easements, that sale conveyed assets free-and-clear), estoppel, and tort claims; defendants counterclaimed for trespass, injunction, and related relief.
- The court ordered a joint as-built survey (Smith Land Surveying) showing the pipeline crosses both parcels (1,103 ft on Bailey Homestead and 197 ft on Johnson); DeepRock admitted the pipeline crosses the properties in pleadings.
- Trial court granted summary judgment dismissing DeepRock’s claims for easement-by-estoppel, invalidity of Forté easements, tortious-interference and civil-conspiracy; it found DeepRock a trespasser on the properties and also ruled that pre-sale claims against WES were cut off by the receivership sale but post-sale trespass claims against DeepRock could proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeepRock) | Defendant's Argument (Forté / Landowners / Deem/Derow) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of court-ordered as-built survey and certain affidavits | Survey lacked proper authentication and expert foundation; affidavits conflicted with depositions or were ambush evidence | Survey was produced in discovery and accompanied by transmittal/memo; affidavits rebutted claims and were not made in bad faith | Trial court should have ruled earlier but denial to strike was harmless; survey and affidavits admissible and considered on summary judgment |
| Easement by estoppel | Landowners acquiesced or misled WES such that DeepRock acquired equitable easement | Landowners never promised or misrepresented; they timely objected to WES and told WES agents the pipeline was trespass; Deem (WES landman) corroborates no easements obtained | No genuine issue of material fact for estoppel; summary judgment for defendants — easement by estoppel dismissed |
| Trespass / declaratory that pipeline crosses properties | Pipeline does not trespass or DeepRock has defenses (estoppel or invalid Forté easements) | Survey and DeepRock’s admissions show pipeline crosses the parcels; Forté holds recorded easements for the parcels | Declaratory relief and trespass counterclaims for Forté and landowners granted; DeepRock is trespasser on those properties (post-sale trespass allowed to proceed) |
| Validity of Forté easements (champerty, receivership stay, statute of frauds) | Forté is an officious intermeddler (champerty/maintenance), violated receivership stay, and easements are insufficiently described | Forté obtained and recorded easements before DeepRock purchased pipeline; Forté is a party with a bona fide interest; landowners free to grant easements; DeepRock lacks standing to invoke statute-of-frauds defense to third-party easements | Forté easements valid; champerty/maintenance and stay arguments rejected; statute-of-frauds challenge not available to DeepRock |
| Receivership sale free-and-clear & successor liability | Receivership sale cut off all claims and encumbrances so DeepRock acquired assets free of all trespass claims and successor liability | Pre-sale claims against WES were extinguished against the assets (attach to sale proceeds), but post-sale trespass by DeepRock is independently actionable | Sale conveyed WES assets free-and-clear of pre-sale liens/claims; pre-sale trespass claims against WES cannot be asserted against DeepRock, but post-sale trespass claims against DeepRock survive and may be tried |
| Tortious interference and civil conspiracy | Forté/Deem/Derow interfered with WES/DeepRock relationships/contracts by procuring easements for Forté | There was no contract or ongoing business relationship with WES at the time Forté obtained easements; conspiracy requires independent tort | Summary judgment for defendants: tortious interference and civil conspiracy dismissed for lack of contract/relationship or underlying tort |
Key Cases Cited
- Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp., 789 N.E.2d 217 (Ohio 2003) (defines champerty and maintenance and explains when third-party funding may be improper)
- Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment burdens and proof requirements)
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 707 N.E.2d 853 (Ohio 1999) (elements of tortious-interference with contract)
- Maloney v. Patterson, 579 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio App. 1989) (explains requirements and difficulties in proving easement by estoppel)
- Park Natl. Bank v. Cattani, 931 N.E.2d 623 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (receiver may sell assets free-and-clear and transfer competing claims to sale proceeds)
- Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 150 N.E.3d 877 (Ohio 2020) (authentication of documents produced in discovery may suffice under Evid.R. 901)