2016 Ohio 7152
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Spellman Outdoor Advertising leased property in Windham, OH in 2007 and recorded a memorandum of lease permitting billboards; Spellman had no actual or constructive notice of any turnpike restriction when it took the lease.
- OTIC (Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission) holds a 1953 warranty deed containing a covenant prohibiting billboards visible from the Ohio Turnpike; that covenant was recorded in OTIC’s deed but not in the chain of title for the Spellman parcel.
- The Spellman parcel’s recorded chain of title after 1954 (the Mullett deed) contains no reference to the 1953 OTIC deed or its restrictive covenant.
- Spellman filed a quiet-title and declaratory-judgment action in Portage County seeking determination that the 1953 restriction does not encumber its property; ODOT separately denied Spellman billboard permits and that denial was appealed administratively and to Franklin County Common Pleas.
- The Portage County trial court granted Spellman’s summary-judgment motion and denied OTIC’s MSJ, holding the restriction was not in Spellman’s chain of title and thus did not encumber the property; OTIC’s subsequent Civ.R. 60(B) relief was denied and OTIC appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spellman must exhaust administrative remedies before suing to quiet title | Spellman: administrative process cannot resolve substantive property rights; ODOT lacks jurisdiction to decide chain-of-title/quiet-title claims | OTIC: Spellman is forum-shopping and must exhaust the pending ODOT/administrative appeal because the issues are materially dispositive | Court held exhaustion not required: ODOT’s permit process cannot adjudicate substantive real-property/quiet-title claims, so no adequate administrative remedy existed |
| Whether the 1953 OTIC restrictive covenant encumbers Spellman’s parcel (chain-of-title/constructive notice) | Spellman: the restriction is not in the parcel’s chain of title and did not provide constructive notice | OTIC: the restriction in its deed applies to the land and should attach to Spellman’s parcel | Court held as a matter of law the restriction is outside the Spellman chain of title and does not encumber the property |
| Applicability of the Ohio Marketable Title Act to preserve OTIC’s restriction | Spellman: chain-of-title analysis controls; restriction was not preserved in the parcel chain and Marketable Title Act analysis is unnecessary to decide this case | OTIC: Marketable Title Act and governmental-instrumentality exception can preserve the restriction despite recording gap | Court: resolved on chain-of-title grounds; Marketable Title Act and its exceptions were unnecessary to reach but discussed—OTIC failed to timely press that defense below |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment | Spellman: submitted admissible affidavits and title-expert evidence showing no constructive notice or recording in chain of title | OTIC: relied on administrative record and did not present Civ.R.56 evidence showing factual disputes; waited to advance additional title arguments in Civ.R.60(B) | Court held OTIC failed to meet its summary-judgment burden; no material factual dispute shown in admissible evidence and OTIC cannot introduce new arguments via Civ.R.60(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Loopco Indus., 66 Ohio St.3d 64 (summary judgment should be entered with circumspection)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (trial court may not weigh evidence on summary judgment)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (summary-judgment doubts resolved for nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment and genuine issues of material fact)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (exceptions to exhaustion of administrative remedies: futility or lack of administrative relief)
- Spring Lakes, Ltd. v. O.F.M. Co., 12 Ohio St.3d 333 (restriction not enforceable if not recorded in that property’s chain of title)
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Buell, 144 Ohio St.3d 490 (Marketable Title Act construed with recording statutes)
- Toth v. Berks Title Ins. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 338 (Marketable Title Act extinguishes interests prior to root of title)