McKenna v. Boyce
2012 Ohio 5163
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Owners of adjacent properties on Adamsville Road, McKennas (4885) and Boyces (4855) acquired their parcels at different times (1957–1980 vs. 2008).
- Dinan surveyed in 2010, concluding the deed line and a line of pine trees aligned with the earlier 1957 description, placing the line north of the McKenna trees.
- McKennas claimed 0.205 acres north of a shrub line as their adverse-possession area, dating possession to 1981.
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint in 2011 asserting adverse possession, trespass, and damages; defendants counterclaimed for compensation and a prescriptive easement.
- The trial court granted Boyces’ summary judgment and denied McKennas’ motion; the court held the McKennas failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the McKennas’ use of the disputed land was insufficient to establish adverse possession under Ohio law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Boyce on adverse possession. | McKennaes argue open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, hostile use for 21 years. | Boyces contend no clear and convincing evidence of adverse possession; ownership remained with record title. | Yes; McKennaes failed to prove adverse possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (1981) (adverse possession elements; continuous, open and notorious use)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (summary judgment standard; Civ.R. 56 review)
- Kaufman v. Geisken Enterprises, Ltd., 2003-Ohio-1027 (Ohio App.3d) (open and notorious use; 21-year possession rule)
- Zipf v. Dalgarn, 114 Ohio St.291, 151 N.E. 174 (1926) (ability to tack adverse-use periods in privity)
- Murphy v. Cromwell, 2004-Ohio-6279 (5th Dist.) (insufficient adverse use evidence)