2019 Ohio 4821
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- 1985 "License Agreements" between Joseph Brothers (grantor) and Dunn Brothers (grantee) granted: (a) an "access license" across Joseph property from State Route 2 to the Dunn (benefitted) parcel, and (b) an "irrevocable and perpetual" sign license to erect a single-pole identification sign near State Route 2.
- The Agreement stated the access license would remain in effect "so long as Grantee is the record owner of the Benefitted Property;" the sign license expressly ran with the land and included successors and assigns.
- Dunn Brothers transferred the benefitted parcel by recorded deed in 1997 to Dunn Bros., Ltd. (a reorganization from partnership to LLC), changing the record owner.
- In 2012–13 Dunn remodeled the sign on Joseph’s property: added two visible pillar covers and an electronic message board; the original poles remained and the city issued a permit for a 114 sq ft sign.
- Joseph Brothers sued (2014) seeking declarations that the access license and sign easement were extinguished or violated, quiet title, and trespass; the trial court granted summary judgment to Dunn; appeal followed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether access license terminated when grantee ceased to be the record owner | Access license was limited to "Grantee" (Dunn Brothers partnership) and terminated when deeded to Dunn (LLC) in 1997 | The transfer was merely an organizational change; the Dunns’ continued ownership and intent preserved the access right | Court: access license terminated on transfer; summary judgment for Dunn reversed in part |
| Whether the sign easement was violated by the 2012 sign (single-pole, size, advertising) | New sign uses two pillars, exceeds permissible visual footprint, displays advertising beyond mere identification, and exceeds 125 sq ft per face | Claims are time-barred/laches for single-pole issue; new sign complies with size and permissible advertising | Court: single-pole claim time-barred (accrued 1986); size and advertising claims rejected—sign complies with 125 sq ft limit and advertising/modernization allowed; summary judgment for Dunn affirmed |
| Whether common-law trespass claim survives given the easement | Dunn exceeded the easement scope and therefore trespassed | Dunn had an express easement to install/maintain the sign, so it had authority to enter | Court: trespass claim barred as matter of law because Dunn held an express easement; summary judgment for Dunn affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (appellate summary-judgment standard)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (standards for summary judgment)
- Aultman Hosp. Assn. v. Community Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St.3d 51 (contract construction: ascertain parties' intent)
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Buell, 144 Ohio St.3d 490 (definition and breadth of "interest in land")
- Cambridge Village Condominium Assn. v. Cambridge Condominium Assn., 139 Ohio App.3d 328 (distinction: license vs. license coupled with interest/easement)
- Mosher v. Cook, 62 Ohio St.2d 316 (license generally terminable at will of licensor)
- Shifrin v. Forest City Ent., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (courts will not rewrite clear contracts)
- Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506 (when a cause of action accrues for statute-of-limitations purposes)
- Centel Cable Television Co. of Ohio, Inc. v. Cook, 58 Ohio St.3d 8 (dominant-holder may not impose additional burdens; limits on easement use)