Rising v. Litchfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2016 Ohio 6971

Property at issue: 16' x ~40' driveway strip across land owned by Litchfield Township that provided ingress/egress to Rising’s Avon Lake Road parcel; township acquired the strip in 1999.
Rising and his parents used the driveway for decades; Rising claims a prescriptive easement and sought to tack his parents’ use to satisfy the 21-year requirement.
Trial court originally denied Rising’s claim, granting summary judgment to township; Ninth District reversed in part (Rising I and Rising II), remanding to evaluate tacking and whether Rising proved prescriptive use by clear and convincing evidence.
On remand the trial court found Rising could tack his parents’ use, and awarded him an easement for personal ingress and egress over a specified 16' x 39.96' strip (with map).
Township appealed, arguing (1) Rising’s use differed from his parents’ (so tacking improper), (2) the court inadequately defined the easement rights, and (3) the driveway does not extend to Norwalk Road so it cannot serve as a cut-through to the highway.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rising may tack his parents’ use to reach 21 years for a prescriptive easement	Rising: parents and he were in privity; uses were same/similar and continuous	Township: Rising’s use (occasional commercial/firewood) differed from parents’ purely personal use	Court: Affirmed trial court — use was predominantly personal; tacking permitted (not against manifest weight)
Whether Rising proved prescriptive-easement elements by clear and convincing evidence	Rising: continuous, open, notorious, adverse use for required period (with tacking)	Township: interruptions/absences and insufficient continuity defeated prescription	Court: Trial court properly found continuity and tacking satisfied; easement awarded for personal ingress/egress
Whether trial court adequately defined scope/nature of easement	Rising: awarded easement for personal ingress/egress over described strip and map	Township: claimed court failed to define rights precisely	Court: Order specified 16' x 39.96' strip and attached map; specificity sufficient — no error
Whether easement can be used as cut-through to Norwalk Road when strip does not reach roadway	Rising: sought easement to access Avon Lake Road property (did not seek easement on adjacent city parcel)	Township: driveway does not extend to Norwalk Road; cannot provide access to highway	Court: Argument forfeited (not raised below); appellant failed to argue plain error on appeal, so claim rejected

Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest-weight challenges and weighing credibility)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil appeals is disfavored and applies only in exceptional circumstances)