Hardert v. Neumann, 2014 Ohio 1770

The Hardert family owned two adjoining tracts (102.935 acres and 19.036 acres); a 0.142-acre, 16.5-foot-wide strip belonging to Neumann sat between them and functioned as an outlet/right-of-way to Grange Hall Road.
In 1982 the Harderts’ father purchased the second tract, removed two rows of trees and a fence that separated the properties, added topsoil, eliminated a dirt lane, and farmed the two tracts and the disputed strip as one field.
From 1982–1997 the Harderts farmed/cropped the disputed strip; from 1998–2010 they enrolled it in the federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and maintained it as grass (mowing, planting grasses, preventing erosion).
Relations between the families were poor; the Harderts believed they owned the strip and made no attempt to conceal their use; Neumann admitted the Harderts had changed the appearance of the area.
In 2010 Neumann planned to fence and build a road on the strip; the Harderts sued for adverse possession and trespass. The trial court awarded the Harderts adverse possession of the outlet from the oak tree to Grange Hall Road and enjoined Neumann from trespassing on that portion; both parties’ broader adverse-possession claims over wooded areas were denied.
On appeal Neumann argued the Harderts’ post-1997 activity (mowing/CRP maintenance) was legally insufficient to satisfy the open-and-notorious element for the 21-year adverse-possession period; the Fourth District affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hardert)	Defendant's Argument (Neumann)	Held
Whether the Harderts’ possession of the disputed strip was "open and notorious" for the 21-year statutory period required for adverse possession	The 1982 removal of trees/fence, addition of topsoil, combining tracts into one farmed field, and continued visible maintenance (including CRP enrollment and mowing) were sufficiently open and notorious through 2010	After 1997 the Harderts only performed maintenance (mowing/grass/hay) which, standing alone, is legally insufficient to provide notice required for adverse possession	Court: No bright-line rule; totality of circumstances matter. The physical alterations (tree/fence removal, topsoil, roadway changes), continued farming 1982–1997, and CRP enrollment/maintenance thereafter were capable of giving notice; possession was open and notorious
Whether the trial court’s adverse-possession judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence of substantial, visible alterations and continuous use supported adverse possession; trial court’s finding should stand	The limited nature of post-1997 activity undermines the 21-year open-and-notorious element; judgment should be reversed	Court: Deferential review; some competent, credible evidence supports the trial court’s findings, so judgment is not against the manifest weight of the evidence

Houck v. Bd. of Park Comm'rs of the Huron Cty. Park Dist., 116 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 2007) (elements for adverse possession include exclusive, open, notorious, continuous, and adverse possession for 21 years)
Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (Ohio 1998) (adverse-possession doctrine is disfavored and elements are strictly applied)
Thompson v. Hayslip, 74 Ohio App.3d 829 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (no bright-line rule that mowing or similar maintenance cannot support adverse possession; courts must consider local facts)
Franklin v. Massillon Homes II, L.L.C., 184 Ohio App.3d 455 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (incidental maintenance can be relevant evidence and may support adverse possession when combined with other facts)
Hindall v. Martinez, 69 Ohio App.3d 580 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990) (defining "open" as without concealment and "notorious" as use known to those likely to inform the owner)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight challenges; trial court's finding will be upheld if supported by some competent, credible evidence)
Shemo v. Mayfield Heights, 88 Ohio St.3d 7 (Ohio 2000) (reiterating deference to trial-court determinations when supported by competent, credible evidence)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (some evidence standard for appellate review of factual findings)