Reagan v. Sturges
2016 Ohio 8226
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1957 Reagans purchased property abutting Fewtown Road; deed/reservation created a 20-foot driveway easement along the west and north lines to serve cottages to the rear.
- The western 10 feet of the easement was graveled and used as the driveway; the eastern 10 feet remained grassed and the Reagans used it as part of their yard, planting flowers, asparagus, grapevines, and small trees.
- Four telephone poles sit along the eastern edge of the easement; telephone company workers and paper delivery drivers regularly entered/used the eastern strip.
- Sturges bought one of the rear cottages in 2005; beginning in 2009 he periodically drove a large commercial truck across the eastern strip to access his property, prompting disputes with the Reagans (including stones placed and a ditch dug by Mr. Reagan).
- Reagans sued (2013) seeking declaratory relief, injunction, and damages, asserting adverse possession of the eastern half of the easement; the magistrate and trial court denied relief, finding the Reagans failed to prove adverse possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reagan) | Defendant's Argument (Sturges) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reagans established adverse possession of the eastern 10 feet of the easement | Reagans contended they continuously and openly used the eastern strip as their yard and thus adversely possessed it | Sturges (and evidence) showed others (telephone workers, paper delivery, neighbors, cottage residents) used the strip and Sturges objected since 2009 | Court: Reagans failed to prove exclusive possession against persons in privity of title; evidence was not clear and convincing, so adverse possession not established |
| Whether Sturges’ monthly use of a large commercial truck enlarged or abused the easement | Reagans argued bringing a commercial truck converted the easement to a commercial use and unreasonably increased the burden on the servient estate | Sturges argued his truck use was occasional and a reasonable variation in mode of enjoyment to exercise the easement’s purpose | Court: Occasional monthly truck use to clean the vehicle did not unreasonably enlarge or change the easement’s purpose; no improper enlargement found |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (Ohio 1998) (elements and burden for adverse possession)
- Franklin v. Massillon Homes II, LLC, 184 Ohio App.3d 455 (5th Dist.) (clarifies exclusivity and proof standards for adverse possession)
- Centel Cable Television Co. of Ohio, Inc. v. Cook, 58 Ohio St.3d 8 (Ohio 1991) (easement holder may not increase the burden on servient estate by new/additional use)
- Crane Hollow, Inc. v. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line, L.L.C., 138 Ohio App.3d 57 (discusses reasonable variation in mode of enjoyment of an easement)