Koprivec v. Rails-to-Trails of Wayne Cty. (Slip Opinion)
102 N.E.3d 444
Ohio2018Background
- Rails-to-Trails purchased an abandoned railroad corridor in 2009 to convert it to a public trail; three neighboring landowners (Koprivec, Bilinovich, Koontz) sued claiming title to adjacent sections.
- Bilinovich and Koontz trace their claimed strips to an 1882 deed conveying land to a railroad "and to its assigns forever" with habendum language "forever for the purpose of constructing and using thereon a Rail Road." They argued the deed created a fee simple determinable reverting on cessation of railroad use.
- All three landowners also asserted adverse possession (21 years) of their respective corridor sections; dispute over whether the 21-year period started in 1987 or later.
- Rails-to-Trails defended title, citing (a) Conrail’s pre-2009 licenses to telecommunications companies for fiber-optic facilities and related corridor-maintenance activities, and (b) railroad-employee inspections and interactions, as interrupts to exclusivity required for adverse possession.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Rails-to-Trails on all claims; Ninth District affirmed on deed issue but reversed on adverse-possession claims, finding questions of fact about whether licensee and railroad activities defeated exclusivity. The Supreme Court reviewed deed construction and exclusivity issues on adverse possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1882 deed created a fee simple determinable (reversion on end of railroad use) | Bilinovich/Koontz: habendum "for the purpose of...Rail Road" creates determinable fee that reverted when rail use ceased | Rails-to-Trails: deed language grants interest "forever" to railroad and assigns, creating fee simple absolute | Deed construed by its four corners: conveyed fee simple absolute; Copps Chapel disapproved to extent it required explicit reverter language |
| Whether existence of licenses to telecom companies defeats exclusivity element of adverse possession as a matter of law | Landowners: telecom licenses and work did not negate their exclusive, owner-like use | Rails-to-Trails: licenses and telecom maintenance demonstrate permissioned third-party presence that interrupts exclusivity | License alone insufficient to defeat exclusivity; but licensee activities that are owner-like can interrupt possession — genuine factual disputes exist about the telecoms’ activities on two sections |
| Whether specific telecom right-of-way clearing (2007) interrupted exclusivity on each disputed section | Landowners: clearing either did not occur on their specific sections or was performed with their permission; thus exclusivity preserved | Rails-to-Trails: large-scale clearing was owner-authorized activity that interrupted exclusivity across corridor | Trial court erred to grant summary judgment on this basis; Supreme Court: genuine factual disputes remain for Koprivec and Koontz sections; cannot decide as matter of law |
| Whether railroad-company employees’ entries/inspections interrupted exclusivity | Landowners: sporadic inspections did not defeat continuous exclusive possession | Rails-to-Trails: title-holder presence/inspection/offers to lease are affirmative acts of ownership that negate exclusivity | For Bilinovich section, undisputed railroad-employee inspections and negotiations interrupted exclusivity — summary judgment for Rails-to-Trails was proper; for Koontz and Koprivec sections, genuine factual disputes remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (Ohio 1998) (elements of adverse possession include open, notorious, exclusive possession for statutory period)
- In re Petition of Copps Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church, 120 Ohio St. 309 (Ohio 1929) (treated in opinion and disapproved to the extent it required explicit reverter language to create a determinable fee)
- Hinman v. Barnes, 146 Ohio St. 497 (Ohio 1946) (courts should construe deeds from their four corners to effect parties’ intent)
- McAllister v. Hartzell, 60 Ohio St. 69 (Ohio 1899) (discussed in context of whether offers to purchase affect exclusivity/adversity)
- Portage County Board of Commissioners v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 2006) (reiterates modern deed-construction principles focusing on plain language of the instrument)