Morlatt v. Johnson
2022 Ohio 4155
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Kenneth and Tasha Morlatt own a parcel north of Stoney Road that they purchased in 2009 (successors to Sharon Rivers); the parties previously litigated the boundary in 2008–09, producing a judgment that constrained access at a particular gate near a curve in Stoney Road.
- In 2018–2019 disputes arose when an electric crew was confronted while attempting to reach the Morlatt property via the Stoney Road easement and, in May 2019, the Morlatts began driveway work and found metal fence posts driven near the disputed boundary.
- Confrontations and videos were introduced at trial showing neighbors (the Johnsons and their children) objecting, posts being removed and tossed into the road, and a deputy temporarily halting work; an affidavit by Mr. Johnson led to a criminal mischief charge against Mr. Morlatt that was later dismissed.
- The trial court found that the Morlatts have a legal right to access the easement where their land meets it, entered judgment for invasion of privacy and absolute nuisance in favor of the Morlatts, and awarded $5,265 in attorney fees against the Johnsons.
- The Johnsons appealed, challenging the invasion-of-privacy and absolute-nuisance findings as against the manifest weight of the evidence and contesting the attorney-fee award; the appellate court also considered timeliness because of a clerk mailing delay.
- The Fourth District reversed the trial court on both substantive claims and the attorney-fee award, and remanded for further proceedings; it also held the appeal timely due to the clerk’s failure to complete service under Civ.R. 58(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morlatt) | Defendant's Argument (Johnsons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) | Johnsons intentionally intruded and harassed the Morlatts (confrontations, interference with electric crew, threats, filing criminal affidavit) | Conduct occurred in/visible from a public right-of-way and public acts cannot support intrusion; Johnsons reasonably questioned alleged trespass | Reversed: no reasonable expectation of privacy where conduct occurred in/near public easement; judgment for invasion of privacy against Johnsons was against manifest weight of evidence |
| Absolute nuisance (private nuisance) | Johnsons’ intentional and/or unlawful acts (threats, false trespass claims, interference) materially interfered with use/enjoyment of property | No unlawful intentional acts; conduct was a reasonable response to suspected trespass; plaintiffs suffered only emotional/subjective discomfort, not physical discomfort or diminished use | Reversed: plaintiffs failed to prove the required physical, material interference with comfort or loss of use; nuisance judgment against Johnsons was against manifest weight of evidence |
| Attorney fees award | Trial court awarded fees to compensate prevailing plaintiffs | Johnsons invoked the American Rule: no fee award absent statute, contract, punitive damages, or proven bad faith | Reversed: no statutory or contractual basis, no punitive damages awarded, and Morlatts are no longer prevailing parties on the reversed claims; fee award unsupported |
| Timeliness of appeal | Appellant’s notice filed more than 30 days after journal entry, but clerk delayed service | Appellee could argue appeal untimely | Appeal held timely: Civ.R. 58(B)/App.R.4(A)(3) controls; clerk failed to complete service and failed to note it in docket, so the 30-day appeal period did not commence as required |
Key Cases Cited
- Housh v. Peth, 133 N.E.2d 340 (Ohio 1956) (defines right of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion)
- Sustin v. Fee, 431 N.E.2d 992 (Ohio 1982) (adopts Restatement rule for intrusion upon seclusion)
- Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., 165 N.E.3d 245 (Ohio 2020) (recent discussion of privacy torts and intrusion)
- Banford v. Aldrich Chem. Co., 932 N.E.2d 313 (Ohio 2010) (nuisance requires material interference with physical comfort; damages for annoyance require physical component or loss of use)
- Interstate Sash & Door Co. v. Cleveland, 74 N.E.2d 239 (Ohio 1947) (describes absolute nuisance categories)
- Gator Milford, L.L.C. v. Clermont Cty. Transp. Improvement Dist., 26 N.E.3d 806 (Ohio 2015) (Civ.R. 58(B) service/docketing requirements for triggering appeal period)
- In re H.F., 900 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio 2008) (App.R.4 timeliness is jurisdictional; appeals must comply with App.R.4)
- Phoenix Lighting Group, L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Group, L.L.C., 153 N.E.3d 30 (Ohio 2020) (recaps American Rule and exceptions for attorney fees)