Jones v. Global Annex, L.L.C.
2019 Ohio 2083
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Dispute over ~2-acre parcel ("disputed property") adjacent to a 2.35-acre parcel that Jones purchased; Jones claimed title by adverse possession.
- Jones and his father lived on and used the adjoining 2.35-acre parcel beginning c.1988; Jones leased then entered a land contract (2001) and received deed to the 2.35 acres in 2005.
- Carmel Farms owned the larger tract in 1988, surveyed it in 1989, conveyed most of it to Whiteside in 1989 while excluding the 2.35 acres Jones occupied.
- Jones testified to open uses of the disputed property (hunting, mowing, ATV tracks, planting trees/food plots, parking campers) beginning in the late 1980s/1990s; satellite imagery gaps limited proof of continuous use for a full 21 years.
- Global Annex bought the adjoining farmland in February 2017, notified Jones of encroachment, removed vegetation/equipment, and sued/was sued; trial court denied Jones’s adverse-possession claim and denied Global Annex’s counterclaim for lost rental income.
- On appeal the court affirmed: Jones failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence (including the 21-year continuous period), and Global Annex failed to prove lost farm rental damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones acquired title by adverse possession | Jones claimed continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, adverse use since c.1989 and tacking to Carmel Farms’ occupancy via privity | Global Annex argued Jones did not satisfy 21-year continuous adverse possession; Carmel Farms did not adversely possess after the 1989 sale so tacking fails | Judgment affirmed for Global Annex: Jones failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence (no 21-year continuity/tacking) |
| Whether privity/tacking applies between Jones and Carmel Farms | Jones: as tenant and successor in interest, he can tack Carmel Farms’ prior possession to reach 21 years | Global Annex: Carmel Farms conveyed the disputed land in 1989 and did not adversely possess it thereafter, so no adverse period to tack | Court held tacking unavailable because Carmel Farms had no adverse possession after 1989; no privity that produces the requisite 21 years |
| Whether satellite images and use evidence established boundary acquiescence | Jones: imagery and use show a de facto boundary and exclusive possession up to a line since before 1996 | Global Annex: images have gaps and do not establish continuous adverse use for the required period; evidence shows overgrowth and later use | Court found images and testimony insufficient to prove hostile, continuous, exclusive possession for 21 years |
| Whether Global Annex proved damages for lost farm rental income | Global Annex: unable to rent the disputed acreage in 2017–2018 due to Jones’ actions; claimed $250/acre rent loss | Jones: disputed parcel was not tillable and overgrown; prior owners’ actions also contributed | Court denied counterclaim: trial evidence supported that the acreage was not tillable in 2017–2018 and damages were not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Evanich v. Bridge, 119 Ohio St.3d 260 (2008) (elements and 21-year requirement for adverse possession)
- Zipf v. Dalgarn, 114 Ohio St. (1926) (tacking of successive adverse possession periods where privity exists)
- Yetzer v. Thoman, 17 Ohio St. (1866) (acquiescence/mutual mistake may fix new boundary after 21 years of possession)
- Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (1998) (adverse possession is disfavored; legal titleholder entitled to presumption of ownership)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in civil cases)
- Humphries v. Huffman, 33 Ohio St. (1878) (adverse character requires visible possession with intent to possess)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)