Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed a Sixth District Court of Appeals judgment granting a writ of mandamus in an alleged unconstitutional taking case involving a drainage easement over city property. The court held that the easement allowed Fremont, as owner of the servient estate, to reroute the drainage line so long as it continued to drain the Wassermans’ land, and that the Wassermans failed to prove a taking by clear and convincing evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Fremont violated the express drainage easement by replacing and rerouting the drainage tiles.
- Whether the rerouting and removal of the drainage tiles established an unconstitutional taking requiring Fremont to commence eminent-domain proceedings.
- Whether the Wassermans established entitlement to a writ of mandamus by clear and convincing evidence.
Holdings
- Under the express terms of the easement, the right retained by the servient-estate owner to fix the line and depth of the drainage tile passed to Fremont as successor in interest and included the right to reroute the drainage line, so long as the rerouted line continued to drain the Wassermans' land and served the easement's primary purpose.
- The Wassermans failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Fremont violated the easement or interfered with its drainage purpose; therefore, no taking occurred and Fremont was not required to commence an eminent-domain action.
- The Wassermans were not entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling Fremont to institute appropriation proceedings.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we hold that the right of Fremont’s predecessor to fix the line and depth of the tile remained with the heirs and assigns, and that right includes the right to reroute the line as long as the line continues to fulfill its primary purpose, which is to drain the Wassermans’ land.” (¶ 33)
“We hold that Fremont did not violate the easement, as it retained the right to change the route of the drainage tile as long as it continued to drain the Wassermans’ land, and the Wassermans knew about the rerouting at the time it was happening.” (¶ 41)
“In sum, the Wassermans have failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that a taking of their property has occurred.” (¶ 43)
Factual background
The Wassermans owned farmland subject to flooding and held the benefit of a 1915 drainage easement across land later acquired by Fremont. In 2005, the parties replaced an existing drainage tile with two eight-inch plastic tiles. In 2009, while constructing a reservoir, Fremont replaced those tiles with a single twelve-inch pipe and rerouted the drainage line around the project site. The Wassermans alleged that the rerouting and removal of the old tiles impaired their drainage rights and constituted a taking.
Procedural history
The Wassermans petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling Fremont to initiate eminent-domain proceedings after the city rerouted a drainage easement while constructing a reservoir. The court of appeals initially granted relief, but the Supreme Court of Ohio previously held that the Wassermans had to establish an actual taking rather than merely allege one. On remand, the court of appeals again granted the writ; the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, concluding that the rerouting did not violate the easement and that no taking had been established by clear and convincing evidence.