Harris v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
2013 Ohio 5234
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Harrises own 28 acres east of a DP&L railroad right of way; DP&L owns the railroad corridor crossing their land.
- Harrises used the wooded second parcel for recreation and access via the railroad property, including during high water, to reach their home.
- In 2009 DP&L granted limited permission for ingress/egress across the right of way, which DP&L later revoked in 2010 due to alleged dangerous activities.
- Harrises continued to seek access and later were given limited permission on two days in 2011 to remove equipment, after initial revocation.
- In 2011 Harrises filed suit for prescriptive easement, quiet title, and related tort claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for DP&L on the prescriptive-easement claim.
- The appellate court held that a matured prescriptive easement cannot be defeated by permission granted after maturation and reversed/remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can permission granted after maturation defeat a prescriptive easement? | Harrises contend their open, adverse, 21-year use matured before 2009 permission. | DP&L maintains that post-maturation permission defeats adverse use. | Yes; permission after maturation cannot defeat a matured prescriptive easement; judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trattar v. Rausch, 154 Ohio St. 286 (1950) (prescriptive easement elements and proof)
- J.F. Gioia, Inc. v. Cardinal Am. Corp., 23 Ohio App.3d 33 (8th Dist.1985) (burden on prescriber; duration and adverse use)
- Goldberger v. Bexley Properties, 5 Ohio St.3d 82 (1983) (permissive use defeats if not open and adverse)
- Wood v. Village of Kipton, 2005-Ohio-1816 (9th Dist.) (matured prescriptive easement cannot be defeated by later permission)
- Coleman v. Penndel Co., 123 Ohio App.3d 125 (7th Dist.1997) (burden-shifting in prescriptive easement cases)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (1980) (standard for de novo review in summary judgments)
- Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo review standard; proper legal framework for summary judgments)