2022 Ohio 2367
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Jeffrey and Donna Sherritt leased Lot No. 240 from Willowdale Country Club in 1997 and for over 21 years used a 7-foot strip along the western boundary adjoining Lot No. 241 (the "disputed property").
- James and Kay Leath, lessors of Lot No. 241, undertook construction on the disputed strip; the Leaths alleged the Sherritts removed trees, built a driveway, and removed survey stakes.
- The Sherritts sued Willowdale and the Leaths for trespass, breach of quiet enjoyment, adverse possession/prescriptive easement, nuisance, tree damage and related claims; the Leaths and Willowdale filed counterclaims (including trespass and tree removal).
- The trial court struck the Sherritts’ untimely response to a summary-judgment motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the Leaths and Willowdale on most counts, leaving limited claims before trial; later the court granted additional summary judgment against remaining claims.
- The Leaths moved for contempt based on the court’s May 31, 2018 order enjoining the Sherritts from encroaching; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court found the Sherritts in contempt for failing to remove encroachments.
- The Sherritts appealed, raising three assignments: (1) error in granting Leaths’ summary judgment, (2) error in granting Willowdale’s summary judgment, and (3) error in finding contempt. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leaths' motion for summary judgment | Leath survey conflicts with Sherritts' surveyor opinion; genuine issue of fact exists | Hammontree survey (and Willowdale plat) controls; Metzger opinion did not create a material conflict on boundary | Court affirmed summary judgment for Leaths; Metzger did not create a genuine factual dispute as to the surveyed boundary |
| Willowdale's motion for summary judgment | Sherritt entitled to adverse possession, prescriptive easement, or breach of quiet enjoyment | Sherritts are leaseholders lacking standing for adverse possession/prescriptive easement; disputed strip not part of leasehold so no constructive eviction | Court affirmed summary judgment for Willowdale; leaseholders cannot claim adverse possession or constructive eviction over unleased strip |
| Adverse possession / prescriptive easement / easement by necessity | Sherritts claim long uninterrupted use supports adverse possession or prescriptive easement | Defendants: leaseholders lack standing; boundary evidence supports defendants | Court held leaseholders of Lot 240 lack standing to obtain adverse possession/prescriptive easement/easement by necessity to acquire additional property |
| Contempt for violating May 31, 2018 order | Sherritts argued they did not intend violation / raised factual defenses | Leaths presented evidence Sherritts did not remove encroachments; intent is irrelevant for civil contempt | Court affirmed contempt finding; movant met clear-and-convincing burden and innocent intent is not a defense to civil contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (summary-judgment de novo standard and evidence viewed in favor of nonmoving party)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (three-part Civ.R. 56 standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (reciprocal burden of nonmoving party must set forth specific facts)
- McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187 (1949) (innocent acts do not excuse violation of a decree in contempt context)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971) (sanctions in civil contempt aim to compel compliance; innocent intent not a defense)
- Dworkin v. Paley, 93 Ohio App.3d 383 (1994) (existence and scope of covenant of quiet enjoyment in leases)