Goralske v. Parsell
2016 Ohio 531
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Hilltop Manor subdivision (1964) reserved a 40-foot private roadway easement for "ingress and egress" to lots in the plat and to the lands west of the subdivision, "for the original platters . . . and their purchasers, executors and assigns." The restrictions placed maintenance responsibility on the lot owners and required a majority vote to authorize repairs.
- The drive historically served three homes in Hilltop Manor and some limited outside uses (farmers, family). It was gravel originally and was blacktopped in 1989 by lot-owner agreement.
- Dana and Roxanne Parsell purchased the adjoining western tract in 2011 and proposed developing it as the Buckeye Ridge subdivision, requiring heavy equipment and a widened/repaved access tying into the Hilltop Manor private drive.
- Hilltop Manor owners objected, posted a 6,000 lb. weight limit, and sought injunctive relief to prevent heavy-equipment use and widening. Parsells counterclaimed for access under the recorded easement.
- Trial court held the easement is appurtenant (runs with the land), granted Parsells the right to use the easement for ingress/egress, but ordered Parsells to pay for damages and for any widening they required; Hilltop owners remain responsible under the restriction for regular maintenance (subject to their majority vote). Both sides appealed; the court of appeals affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Goralske / Hilltop owners) | Defendant's Argument (Parsell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of easement — appurtenant or reservation | The Dilts only reserved a personal right to access their retained land (reservation), not an easement running with the land. | The recorded plat and restrictions created an express easement benefiting the dominant parcel and its successors (appurtenant). | Court: easement is appurtenant and runs with the land (affirmed). |
| Injunctive relief to block heavy-equipment use/widening | Use for heavy equipment and subdivision development exceeds reasonable use and should be enjoined. | Parsells have a recorded right of ingress/egress; injunctive relief is inappropriate because easement holders may use the servient drive for reasonable access, and no adequate alternative exists. | Court: denied injunctive relief; Parsells may use the easement for ingress/egress. |
| Who must pay to widen/reconstruct the private drive for development | Hilltop owners: the restriction places all maintenance and repair costs on lot owners, so Parsells should not force them to pay for improvements. | Parsells: development-created needs should not impose the cost of improvements solely on easement users; if widening is needed for development, Parsells should be able to require or share costs. | Court: Parsells may improve/widen but must pay for damages and the cost of changes required for their development; Hilltop owners remain responsible for ordinary maintenance per the restriction (subject to their majority decision). |
| Liability for damage caused by heavy equipment during development | Hilltop owners: restriction obligates lot owners to repair/maintain, so they should bear all repair costs even for damage from Parsells' development. | Parsells: as easement users, they should not be charged for damage they cause during lawful use and improvement of the easement. | Court: Parsells responsible for damage caused by their heavy-equipment use; trial court’s equitable allocation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apel v. Katz, 83 Ohio St.3d 11 (1998) (discusses principles for easement interpretation and appurtenant vs. in gross)
- Centel Cable Television Co. of Ohio, Inc. v. Cook, 58 Ohio St.3d 8 (1991) (analyzes permissible additional uses of an easement without imposing new burden)
- Pence v. Darst, 62 Ohio App.3d 32 (1989) (discusses when easements run with the land and the need for dominant/servient estates)
- Erie Railroad Co. v. S.H. Kleinman Realty Co., 92 Ohio St. 96 (1915) (recognizes that normal growth and development of dominant land may permit changes in easement use)
- Crane Hollow Creek, Inc. v. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line, LLC, 138 Ohio St.3d 57 (2014) (addresses expectations about development-related changes in easement use)