adverse possession claim in Ohio

2020Scioto No. 13CA3536, 2013-Ohio-5680, ¶ 9 .

2019Scioto No. 13CA3536, 2013-Ohio-5680, ¶ 9 , citing Thompson v. Hayslip, 74 Ohio App.3d 829 , 600 N.E.2d 756 (4th Dist. 1991); see also Spurlock v. Pemberton, 4th Dist.

2021The chain of adverse use by prior succeeding owners ending with the person claiming title by adverse possession, known conceptually as ‘tacking,’ may not be broken, however.” (Internal citation omitted.) Lyman v. Ferrari, 66 Ohio App.2d 72, 76 , 419 N.E.2d 1112 (1st Dist.1979), citing Zipf v. Dalgarn, 114 Ohio St. 291 , 151 N.E. 174 (1926). {¶17} On appeal, Hedrick does not argue that a question of fact remains as to any specific element of the adverse possession doctrine.

2021The chain of adverse use by prior succeeding owners ending with the person claiming title by adverse possession, known conceptually as ‘tacking,’ may not be broken, however.” (Internal citation omitted.) Lyman v. Ferrari, 66 Ohio App.2d 72, 76 , 419 N.E.2d 1112 (1st Dist.1979), citing Zipf v. Dalgarn, 114 Ohio St. 291 , 151 N.E. 174 (1926). {¶17} On appeal, Hedrick does not argue that a question of fact remains as to any specific element of the adverse possession doctrine.

2000In addition, the Beeners argue that the family relationship between the predecessors of both properties casts doubt on the adverse possession claim, and they cite our previous case of Demmitt v. McMillan (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 138 to support this contention.

1998As a preliminary matter, we must clarify the quantum of proof needed to establish each element of an adverse possession claim, something this court has not done definitively apart from the cotenant context. 1 See Demmitt v. McMillan (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 138, 140 , 16 OBR 146, 148, 474 N.E.2d 1212, 1215 .

2016Sandusky No. S-05-023, 2006-Ohio-4293 , to argue that a third party’s installation of an underground utility on disputed property does not defeat an adverse possession claim.

2015Sandusky No. S-05-023, 2006-Ohio-4293, ¶ 23 , citing Ault v. Prairie Farmers Co-Operative Company, 6th Dist.

2012Evanich v. Bridge, 119 Ohio St.3d 260 , 893 N.E.2d 481 , 2008-Ohio-3820 at ¶13; Grace v. Koch (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 577 , 692 N.E.2d 1009 , at the syllabus. {¶ 15} Appellees concede the error, but argue that we should nevertheless affirm the judgment because they maintain that under any burden of proof they would have prevailed.

2012Evanich v. Bridge, 119 Ohio St.3d 260 , 893 N.E.2d 481 , 2008-Ohio-3820 at ¶13; Grace v. Koch (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 577 , 692 N.E.2d 1009 , at the syllabus. {¶ 15} Appellees concede the error, but argue that we should nevertheless affirm the judgment because they maintain that under any burden of proof they would have prevailed.

2007I am also aware of the litany of cases affording the protection of the adverse possession doctrine to “one who has honestly entered and held possession in the belief that the land was his own.” Vanasdal v. Brinker (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 298, 299 , 27 OBR 343, 500 N.E.2d 876 .

2007I am also aware of the litany of cases affording the protection of the adverse possession doctrine to “one who has honestly entered and held possession in the belief that the land was his own.” Vanasdal v. Brinker (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 298, 299 , 27 OBR 343, 500 N.E.2d 876 .

2024Columbiana No. 15CO0029 , 2017-Ohio-767 .

2023Park Dist., 116 Ohio St.3d 148 , 2007-Ohio-5586 , 876 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 10 , citing Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 , 580–581, 692 N.E.2d 1009 (1998).

2023Park Dist., 116 Ohio St.3d 148 , 2007-Ohio-5586 , 876 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 10 , citing Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 , 580–581, 692 N.E.2d 1009 (1998).

2023Butler No. CA2002-11-291, 2003-Ohio-6383, at ¶ 12 , citing Rader at * 2 . {¶ 31} Here, Showboat Restaurant’s possession of Water Lot 1 began no later than 1971, when it opened (and arguably earlier, during its construction) and lasted until 1993.

2021The chain of adverse use by prior succeeding owners ending with the person claiming title by adverse possession, known conceptually as ‘tacking,’ may not be broken, however.” (Internal citation omitted.) Lyman v. Ferrari, 66 Ohio App.2d 72, 76 , 419 N.E.2d 1112 (1st Dist.1979), citing Zipf v. Dalgarn, 114 Ohio St. 291 , 151 N.E. 174 (1926). {¶17} On appeal, Hedrick does not argue that a question of fact remains as to any specific element of the adverse possession doctrine.

2021The chain of adverse use by prior succeeding owners ending with the person claiming title by adverse possession, known conceptually as ‘tacking,’ may not be broken, however.” (Internal citation omitted.) Lyman v. Ferrari, 66 Ohio App.2d 72, 76 , 419 N.E.2d 1112 (1st Dist.1979), citing Zipf v. Dalgarn, 114 Ohio St. 291 , 151 N.E. 174 (1926). {¶17} On appeal, Hedrick does not argue that a question of fact remains as to any specific element of the adverse possession doctrine.

2020Summit No. 26014, 2012-Ohio-5873, ¶ 10 . {¶69} Next, the Khamisis argue that they were denied a jury of their peers because none of the jurors were aware of the doctrine of adverse possession.

2019Kesterson v. Kent State Univ., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5110, ¶ 12 , quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 31} With respect to the 21-year requirement of an adverse possession claim, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a claimant may "tack" his adverse use to any period of adverse use by prior succeeding owners in privity with one another.

2018SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-465 KOPRIVEC ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, v. RAILS-TO-TRAILS OF WAYNE COUNTY, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Koprivec v. Rails-to-Trails of Wayne Cty., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-465.] Real property—Deeds—Adverse possession—Court of appeals’ determination that 1882 deed created a fee simple absolute affirmed—In re Petition of Copps Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church disapproved to extent it suggested that a deed can create a determinable fee only by including language

2018SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-465 KOPRIVEC ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, v. RAILS-TO-TRAILS OF WAYNE COUNTY, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Koprivec v. Rails-to-Trails of Wayne Cty., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-465.] Real property—Deeds—Adverse possession—Court of appeals’ determination that 1882 deed created a fee simple absolute affirmed—In re Petition of Copps Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church disapproved to extent it suggested that a deed can create a determinable fee only by including language

2018The only case cited by Defendants in support of such a contention, [is] Franklin v. Massillon Holmes [sic] II, LLC, 184 Ohio App.3d 455 , 2009-Ohio-5487 , 921 N.E.2d 314 (5th Dist.).

2018The only case cited by Defendants in support of such a contention, [is] Franklin v. Massillon Holmes [sic] II, LLC, 184 Ohio App.3d 455 , 2009-Ohio-5487 , 921 N.E.2d 314 (5th Dist.).

2016Id. at 80 .

2013Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 , 580, 1998-Ohio-607 , 692 N.E.2d 1009 . “[T]o establish adversity, ‘[t]he tenant must unfurl his flag on the land, and keep it flying so that the owner may see, if he will, that an enemy has invaded his dominions and planted his standard of conquest.’ ” Id., at 581, quoting Darling v. Ennis (1980), 138 Vt. 311, 313 , 415 A.2d 228, 230 . {¶ 17} Adverse possession must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

2012Sexton, 117 Ohio St.3d 275 , 883 N.E.2d 1013 , 2008-Ohio-858 , ¶ 33, quoting Valley Ry., 43 Ohio St. at 626. {¶52} As Ohio Edison notes, the twenty-one year period has not elapsed (assuming the adverse possession doctrine is applicable here).

2012Sexton, 117 Ohio St.3d 275 , 883 N.E.2d 1013 , 2008-Ohio-858 , ¶ 33, quoting Valley Ry., 43 Ohio St. at 626. {¶52} As Ohio Edison notes, the twenty-one year period has not elapsed (assuming the adverse possession doctrine is applicable here).

2010Further, like the doctrine of adverse possession, “ ‘[prescriptive easements are not favored in law, because the legal titleholder forfeits rights to another without compensation.’ ” McCumbers at ¶ 15, quoting Cadwallader at ¶ 55. {¶ 44} “ ‘Adverse use’ can be shown only when a party uses the land ‘without permission and inconsistent with the rights of the property owner.’ ” McCumbers, 183 Ohio App.3d 762 , 2009-Ohio-4465 , 918 N.E.2d 1046, at ¶ 15 , quoting Cadwallader, 178 Ohio App.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-4166 , 896 N.E.2d 748, at ¶ 57 .

2010Further, like the doctrine of adverse possession, “ ‘[prescriptive easements are not favored in law, because the legal titleholder forfeits rights to another without compensation.’ ” McCumbers at ¶ 15, quoting Cadwallader at ¶ 55. {¶ 44} “ ‘Adverse use’ can be shown only when a party uses the land ‘without permission and inconsistent with the rights of the property owner.’ ” McCumbers, 183 Ohio App.3d 762 , 2009-Ohio-4465 , 918 N.E.2d 1046, at ¶ 15 , quoting Cadwallader, 178 Ohio App.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-4166 , 896 N.E.2d 748, at ¶ 57 .

2010Further, like the doctrine of adverse possession, “ ‘[prescriptive easements are not favored in law, because the legal titleholder forfeits rights to another without compensation.’ ” McCumbers at ¶ 15, quoting Cadwallader at ¶ 55. {¶ 44} “ ‘Adverse use’ can be shown only when a party uses the land ‘without permission and inconsistent with the rights of the property owner.’ ” McCumbers, 183 Ohio App.3d 762 , 2009-Ohio-4465 , 918 N.E.2d 1046, at ¶ 15 , quoting Cadwallader, 178 Ohio App.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-4166 , 896 N.E.2d 748, at ¶ 57 .

2010Further, like the doctrine of adverse possession, “ ‘[prescriptive easements are not favored in law, because the legal titleholder forfeits rights to another without compensation.’ ” McCumbers at ¶ 15, quoting Cadwallader at ¶ 55. {¶ 44} “ ‘Adverse use’ can be shown only when a party uses the land ‘without permission and inconsistent with the rights of the property owner.’ ” McCumbers, 183 Ohio App.3d 762 , 2009-Ohio-4465 , 918 N.E.2d 1046, at ¶ 15 , quoting Cadwallader, 178 Ohio App.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-4166 , 896 N.E.2d 748, at ¶ 57 .

2006Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. , 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 . {¶ 8} The issue presented by Lake Metroparks is whether the statute of limitations in an adverse possession claim continues to accrue where the subject property is owned by a political subdivision of the state of Ohio.