2020 Ohio 3554
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Tower 10 owns LeVeque Tower; 10 W Broad owns the One Columbus building; Red Capital is a tenant of One Columbus. The buildings are connected by an enclosed walkway comprised of the Wall Street skywalk, LeVeque Tower second floor passage, and the Lynn Street skywalk to the parking garage.
- In 1985 the parties recorded a Declaration granting cross-easements for construction, maintenance, and pedestrian use of the walkway and stating the walkway "shall be maintained open at all times during the normal business hours of the [One Columbus] Building, or at such other times as agreed to by the parties."
- The city granted aerial encroachment easements and the skywalks were built in 1986–87. Keycard readers and locking doors were installed during construction.
- From opening in 1987 until June 23, 2017 One Columbus employees had 24/7 keycard access through the walkway; Tower 10 deactivated that after-hours access in 2017.
- Tower 10 sought a declaratory judgment that access was limited to One Columbus’ normal business hours; 10 W Broad and Red Capital sought declarations/injunctions that they had rights to continuous (24/7) access (arguing express agreement, prescription, or estoppel). The trial court granted summary judgment to appellees finding an express 24/7 easement; the Tenth District reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Declaration grants a 24/7 easement to One Columbus tenants/employees | Tower 10: Declaration requires the walkway be open only during One Columbus’ "normal business hours" (defined by leases as 6:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. M–F, 8 a.m.–12 p.m. Sat). | 10 W Broad/Red: Section 2.05 allowed the parties to agree to other times and the parties did so pre-construction; the long course of conduct shows an express 24/7 agreement. | The Declaration is clear and unambiguous: it mandates access during One Columbus’ normal business hours; it does not by its terms create a 24/7 easement. |
| Whether an oral/parol agreement created a permanent after-hours easement (statute of frauds) | Tower 10: Any grant of an interest in land must be in writing under the statute of frauds and R.C. provisions; no writing exists so unenforceable. | Appellees: The recorded Declaration contemplated party agreements; the parties’ conduct proves an agreement that does not conflict with the Declaration. | Parol evidence cannot create or modify an easement that must comply with the statute of frauds; no written modification exists, so no enforceable permanent easement was created by parol. |
| Whether the partial-performance exception removes the oral agreement from the statute of frauds | Tower 10: Appellees cannot show an oral contract with exclusive reliance or detrimental change sufficient for part performance. | Appellees: Installing card readers, issuing keycards, and 30 years of after-hours use demonstrate partial performance. | Exception inapplicable: plaintiffs failed to show an oral contract plus exclusive reliance/detrimental change; installation/use do not suffice absent proof of the oral contract terms and exclusive reliance. |
| Whether appellees have alternative equitable easements (prescription or estoppel) | Tower 10: Not conceded. | 10 W Broad: prescriptive easement; Red Capital: easement by estoppel (or other equitable relief). | Trial court did not rule on these alternative theories; appellate court remanded so the trial court may consider prescription and estoppel in the first instance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (summary judgment de novo standard)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party burden under Civ.R. 56)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (construction of an unambiguous easement is a question of law)
- Alban v. R.K. Co., 15 Ohio St.2d 229 (definition and nature of an easement)
- Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618 (easement as a non-possessory property interest)
- Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520 (statute of frauds requires written conveyances of interests in land)
- Delfino v. Paul Davies Chevrolet, Inc., 2 Ohio St.2d 282 (partial performance doctrine and equitable exception to the statute of frauds)