2012 Ohio 6220
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Violantes sue Berishas and Village of Brady Lake over alleged dumping of fill dirt into Brady Lake and onto Violantes’ shoreline and property, plus a dock interference claim.
- Deed and chain of title describe a boundary not extending to the shoreline; Bowen 1966 survey referenced and maps shoreline, but deed language centers on metes-and-bounds iron-pipe monuments.
- Magistrate found the Violantes’ deed unambiguous and that the Village owned the shoreline; Berishas’ fill was on Village property, not Violantes’ property; no taking occurred.
- Violantes challenged the magistrate’s findings in objections; trial court adopted the magistrate’s order.
- On appeal, Violantes argue deed ambiguity, misweighing expert testimony, and misapplication of boundary principles affecting Littoral/Riparian rights.
- Court affirms, holding deed unambiguous, shoreline not conveyed, and Village owns Brady Lake shoreline; adverse possession and taking claims fail; expert credibility properly weighed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Violantes’ deed ambiguous regarding shoreline boundary? | Violantes contend Bowen survey extends boundary to shoreline. | Deed is clear; boundary is metes-and-bounds to iron pipes, not shoreline. | Deed unambiguous; boundary ends at iron-pipe markers. |
| Does latent ambiguity require considering extrinsic evidence of shoreline boundary? | Latent ambiguity exists due to prior deeds/leases referencing shoreline. | No latent ambiguity; extrinsic evidence not needed when deed language is clear. | No latent ambiguity; extrinsic evidence not required. |
| Did the trial court improperly give undue weight to the Village’s expert over Violante's expert? | Trocchio’s testimony should control over Schuller’s conflicting views. | Credibility is for the trier of fact; appellate should not reweight witness credibility. | No abuse of discretion; credibility determinations accorded deference. |
| Was Lembeck v. Nye correctly applied to a boundary defined by metes and bounds? | Lembeck supports shoreline as boundary when appropriate. | Unambiguous metes-and-bounds language controls; natural boundary not conveyed. | Lembeck applicable but deed unambiguous; shoreline not conveyed. |
| Did the artificial boundary (iron pipes) trump natural boundary when in conflict? | Shoreline should be favored as natural boundary. | Court must enforce unambiguous deed language; natural boundary not conveyed here. | Unambiguous deed controls; boundary set by iron pipes, not shoreline. |
| Did Violantes acquire Littoral/Riparian rights or suffer a taking? | Adverse possession or taking by removal of shoreline rights. | Violantes never owned shoreline; no taking; rights not conveyed. | No Littoral/right ownership or taking; claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574 (1998) (contract interpretation is a question of law; de novo review)
- Sellman v. Schaaf, 26 Ohio App.2d 35 (1971) (reference to plat incorporates survey as part of description)
- Lembeck v. Nye, 47 Ohio St.336 (1890) (land passed to grantee by metes and bounds; natural boundary considerations)
- Broadsword v. Kauer, 161 Ohio St. 524 (1954) (natural monuments preferred; then artificial, then other calls)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (1978) (interpretation of deeds; unambiguous language governs)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978) (manifest weight standard for reviewing evidence)