2020 Ohio 4340
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- In 1918 Waynesfield platted the Crown Hill Addition with a 16-foot east–west alley (unimproved).
- In 1988 the village mistakenly paved a strip just south of the platted alley across a .235-acre parcel claimed by Michael & Beverly Ridenour.
- North-side landowners (appellants) sued in 2018 seeking vacation of the platted alley, quiet title/adverse possession of the platted alley, and a prescriptive easement over the paved strip; the Ridenours counterclaimed to quiet title to the .235-acre parcel.
- Village submitted affidavits/maps showing an active sanitary sewer running north–south across the location of the original platted alley; village moved for summary judgment arguing appellants cannot adversely possess or force vacation of municipal property.
- Trial court granted summary judgment: denied appellants adverse possession/abandonment of the platted alley (except for a tiny area occupied by a garage), held the Ridenours remain owners of the paved parcel but the public/village acquired utility/right-of-way easements by prescription/adverse possession; appellants appealed.
- The Third District affirmed: no required hearing under R.C. 723.09 given the record, sewer use defeated abandonment, and no genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a hearing under R.C. 723.09 was required before adjudicating vacation of the platted alley | Appellants: statute mandates a hearing to determine vacation; Baker requires a hearing when a court vacates a street without evidence | Village: R.C. 723.09 requires a hearing only when the court will vacate; here the court maintained status quo and had summary-judgment evidence | No hearing reversible error; summary-judgment record was adequate and no hearing was required |
| Whether appellants could obtain adverse possession/abandonment of the platted alley against the village | Appellants: the alley was abandoned / they acquired prescriptive rights by long use | Village: municipalities are not subject to adverse possession/abandonment where municipality has exercised dominion (here via active sewer) | Alley not abandoned; active sewer crossing the platted alley showed municipal dominion; adverse possession/abandonment claims defeated |
| Whether the village could obtain rights (adverse-possession/prescriptive easement) over the paved .235-acre parcel though that claim was not pleaded | Appellants: village did not plead adverse possession; plaintiffs lack standing to challenge unpleaded relief | Village: summary-judgment motion presented evidence of open, notorious, exclusive use for utilities; equitable right to utility/right-of-way relief | Trial court awarded village utility/right-of-way easement by prescription/adverse-possession use; appellate court affirmed the practical outcome though noting some ambiguity about who may challenge unappealed rulings |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact (sewer location, extent of use) precluded summary judgment | Appellants: disputed sewer location and other factual issues required trial | Defendants: affidavits and maps show sewer traverses the platted alley and continuous municipal use | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Houck v. Board of Park Comm'rs of the Huron Cty. Park Dist., 116 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007) (general rule that adverse possession does not apply against the state).
- State ex rel. AAA Investments v. City of Columbus, 17 Ohio St.3d 151 (1985) (municipalities may acquire land by adverse possession only in limited circumstances and with strict proof).
- Nail & Iron Co. v. Furnace Co., 46 Ohio St. 544 (1889) (street/alley abandonment requires nonuse and municipal intent to abandon).
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary-judgment appellate review is de novo).
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party's initial burden in summary judgment; nonmovant must show specific facts).
- Baker v. North College Hill, 31 Ohio App.3d 208 (1986) (R.C. 723.09 requires a hearing when a court vacates a street without adequate evidence).
- Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U.S. 508 (1893) (historical authority acknowledging municipalities and adverse-possession principles).