2015 Ohio 4239
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Robert Golubski bought his home in 1976 and for decades used an approximately 12–15 ft. strip south of his house (garden, flower beds, lawn), which neighbors (the Luces) and their successor (Nancy Thomason) treated as Golubski’s yard; a lilac bush planted on the agreed line was used to mark the boundary.
- A 2000 survey showed the true record line was less than 1 ft. from Golubski’s southern wall, but he continued using the strip as before.
- The Luces’ parcel went into foreclosure; United States Plastic Equipment, LLC (via its owner Paul Miller, a longtime neighbor who knew of the informal boundary) purchased the parcel at sheriff’s sale in 2012.
- After removal of the lilac bush and cleanup by purchaser’s agents, Golubski sued to quiet title claiming adverse possession and, alternatively, the doctrine of acquiescence; the magistrate (and trial court) awarded title to Golubski under both theories and fixed the boundary at the former lilac location (~15 ft south of the house).
- On appeal the court: rejected adverse possession (use was permissive), affirmed acquiescence (purchaser had notice through Miller), reversed to remand for a precise legal description of the newly established boundary, and otherwise affirmed dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Golubski acquired title by adverse possession | Golubski claimed exclusive, open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for 21+ years | Defendant asserted use was mere permissive maintenance (mowing, gardening) and thus not hostile | Reversed: adverse possession fails because use was permissive and not hostile |
| Whether the doctrine of acquiescence applies to establish the boundary | Golubski argued neighbors mutually treated the lilac line as the boundary for the statutory period | Defendant argued acquiescence cannot bind a purchaser at sheriff’s sale and purchaser lacked requisite mutual agreement/notice | Affirmed: acquiescence applies; purchaser (via Miller) had actual notice, so doctrine binds defendant |
| Whether acquiescence is defeated by a mistake as to the true boundary | Golubski relied on long-standing mutual recognition despite record line uncertainty | Defendant argued parties were mistaken about true line so acquiescence inapplicable | Rejected: acquiescence tolerates uncertainty; no plain error in not accepting mistake argument |
| Whether judgment provided an enforceable legal description of the conveyed strip | Golubski asked to quiet title to the strip defined by the lilac line (~13'11"–15' and running west for ~230') | Defendant argued the court failed to set a precise, formal legal description | Partially reversed and remanded: quieting of title affirmed under acquiescence but court must enter a precise legal description of the boundary |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (Ohio 1998) (sets Ohio elements for adverse possession and notes doctrine is disfavored)
- Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. Donovan, 111 Ohio St. 341 (Ohio 1924) (discusses necessity of hostile possession for adverse title)
- First Nat’l Bank of New Bremen v. Burns, 88 Ohio St. 434 (Ohio 1913) (knowledge of corporate officers/imputed notice to corporation)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (standard for weighing credibility and manifest-weight review)
- State ex rel. Conway v. Taylor, 136 Ohio St. 174 (Ohio 1939) (interpretation should follow the spirit and purpose of the law)