Harris v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
56 N.E.3d 399
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Neal and Joy Harris own two adjoining parcels (east of an abandoned railroad bed) that they access by crossing a former railroad right-of-way now owned by Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L).
- The Harris family and predecessors used the railroad bed continuously for ingress and egress since 1973; use included crossing with livestock, vehicles, and recreational activities.
- DP&L sent letters in 2009–2010: initially denying permission, then granting limited permission, then revoking it; the Harrises ceased activities after revocation but had used the way for decades prior.
- The Harrises sued (Count I styled as quiet title) seeking recognition of an easement by prescription; trial court granted summary judgment to the Harrises, DP&L appealed.
- On remand after an earlier appeal, the trial court again granted summary judgment for the Harrises; this appeal challenges standing and sufficiency of evidence for a prescriptive easement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrises lack standing because they did not possess fee title or exclusive possession | Harrises: standing exists to assert a prescriptive easement based on possessory use of dominant estate; quiet-title styling does not defeat the prescriptive claim | DP&L: standing to bring a quiet-title action cannot be waived; plaintiff must show possession or remainder/reversion interest under R.C. 5303.01 | Court: Harrises had standing to pursue a prescriptive easement; quiet-title/adverse-possession rules for fee title differ from prescriptive-easement rules (exclusivity not required) |
| Whether the Harrises presented clear-and-convincing, unrebutted evidence of an easement by prescription (open, notorious, adverse, continuous for 21+ years) | Harrises: family use since 1973 was open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for ingress/egress; later changes in activity type do not change character of use | DP&L: mode of use changed (farming to recreational); DP&L’s 2009–2010 permission revoked—so use was not adverse/continuous | Court: Harrises met each element; tacking of predecessor use applies; a change in mode (animals to ATVs) was a change of frequency not character; DP&L’s later permission does not defeat a matured prescriptive easement |
Key Cases Cited
- Trattar v. Rausch, 154 Ohio St. 286 (1950) (defines easement and recognizes acquisition by prescription)
- Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (1998) (elements and standard for adverse possession; distinguishes adverse possession from prescription on exclusivity)
- J.F. Gioia, Inc. v. Cardinal Am. Corp., 23 Ohio App.3d 33 (Eighth Dist.) (sets elements for prescriptive easement: open, notorious, adverse, continuous, 21 years)
- Wood v. Village of Kipton, 160 Ohio App.3d 591 (Ninth Dist.) (once a prescriptive easement matures, subsequent permission does not extinguish it)
- Village of Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)