2019 Ohio 5298
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Hemmelgarn owned a parcel plus two noncontiguous parcels (Tract I: 0.64 acres with road access; Tract II: 24.502 acres landlocked). In 1984 he sold Tracts I and II and the deed reserved two easements referencing a plat and stating “ALSO a 30’ easement along the north boundary line of Grantor connecting Tract I and Tract II.”
- Subsequent deeds (1992, 2010, 2015, 2017) contained the same easement language; HSI purchased Tracts I and II in April 2017.
- Dispute arose over the location, scope, and permitted use of the easements on Hemmelgarn’s property (northeast corner): Hemmelgarn says easements limited to the L-shaped plat area; HSI contends they include an additional 30' strip along Hemmelgarn’s northern boundary connecting Tracts I and II.
- Trial court found two easements: the platted L-shaped drive easement and a separate 30' easement along the northern boundary connecting Tract I and Tract II; held Hemmelgarn failed to prove trespass, adverse possession, or abandonment; HSI’s counterclaims granted.
- On appeal Hemmelgarn raised three assignments: (1) trial court misinterpreted/expanded easements; (2) trial court erred in dismissing trespass claims; (3) trial court erred rejecting adverse possession/abandonment claims. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hemmelgarn's Argument | HSI's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/location of easements (interpretation of deed/plat) | Easements limited to the L‑shaped area shown on the plat; second paragraph only describes a small 30×50 connector | Deed conveys both the L‑shaped drive easement and an additional 30' easement along the north boundary directly connecting Tracts I and II | Affirmed trial court: language plus extrinsic evidence support a 30' strip along the north boundary connecting Tracts I and II (manifest weight of evidence) |
| Trespass (use of the easements and by invitees/for other property) | HSI’s use and its invitees exceeded any easement right and therefore trespassed (including use to access parcels beyond Tract II) | Easement holders may permit reasonable use by invitees/tenants; use was for farm access and consistent with easement purpose | Affirmed: Hemmelgarn failed to prove trespass; existing easement covered the used area and uses were reasonable/extensions consistent with purpose |
| Adverse possession / abandonment of easements | Hemmelgarn had exclusive, open, continuous, adverse possession for 21 years and/or predecessors abandoned the easements by nonuse | Predecessors and tenants used the easement over decades; no unequivocal acts showing abandonment; nonuse alone insufficient | Affirmed: insufficient clear and convincing evidence of exclusive adverse possession or of abandonment (no unequivocal intent to abandon) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crane Hollow, Inc. v. Marathon Ashland Pipeline, LLC, 138 Ohio App.3d 57 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (easement is a grant of a use on the land of another)
- Alban v. R.K. Co., 15 Ohio St.2d 229 (Ohio 1968) (definition and nature of easements)
- Trattar v. Rausch, 154 Ohio St. 286 (Ohio 1950) (easements acquired by grant, implied grant, or prescription)
- Skivoloski v. East Ohio Gas Co., 38 Ohio St.2d 244 (Ohio 1974) (apply contract rules to interpret written easement language)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (Ohio 1978) (courts cannot add terms to clear, unambiguous easement language)
- Apel v. Katz, 83 Ohio St.3d 11 (Ohio 1998) (use of surrounding circumstances to determine scope when easement ambiguous)
- Evanich v. Bridge, 119 Ohio St.3d 260 (Ohio 2008) (elements and burden for adverse possession in Ohio)
- Wyatt v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 87 Ohio App.3d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (nonuse alone does not establish abandonment)
- Fruh Farms, Ltd. v. Holgate, 442 F. Supp. 2d 470 (N.D. Ohio 2006) (easement holders may allow guests and invitees to use an access easement, subject to reasonableness)