Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that NC Enterprises failed to establish that its use of two railway-owned parcels was open and notorious for the required 21-year adverse-possession period. The court concluded that ordinary lawn-maintenance activities were insufficient to put the title owner on notice of adverse possession, reversed the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and remanded for summary judgment in favor of the railway on the adverse-possession claim and consideration of the unjust-enrichment claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether NC Enterprises established the open-and-notorious element of adverse possession for the required 21-year period.
- Whether ordinary lawn-maintenance activities were sufficiently open and notorious to put the title owner on notice of an adverse use.
- Whether the 21-year adverse-possession period could begin before the claimant engaged in an act other than lawn maintenance.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the adverse-possession claim.
Holdings
- An adverse possessor's use must be obvious and apparent enough to hold the title owner accountable for knowing that the land is being adversely used. NC Enterprises failed to prove open and notorious possession of the parcels for the required 21-year period.
- Ordinary lawn-maintenance activities, including mowing grass and trimming bushes, are not sufficiently open and notorious to put the title owner on notice of an adverse use when they are the only adverse acts during the relevant period.
- Norfolk Railway was entitled to summary judgment on NC Enterprises' adverse-possession claim because reasonable minds could reach only the conclusion that the required 21-year period of open, notorious, and adverse possession was not established.
Key quotations
“An open-and-notorious use must be obvious and apparent enough to hold a title owner accountable for knowing that an adverse possessor is using the land.” (¶ 20)
“lawn maintenance on a parcel of land is not open and notorious enough to sufficiently put the owner of the parcel on notice of an adverse use and that the required 21-year period for an adverse-possession claim cannot begin if the only “adverse” acts are lawn maintenance.” (¶ 29)
“We reverse the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions for it to grant Norfolk Railway’s motion for summary judgment as to NC Enterprises’ claim for adverse possession and to consider NC Enterprises’ claim for unjust enrichment, which has not yet been addressed.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
NC Enterprises purchased adjoining property in December 1997 and soon began having contractors perform regular landscaping on two neighboring parcels owned by Norfolk Railway, including mowing, trimming, planting, mulching, and cleanups. NC Enterprises erected a fence on the parcels in September 2000, added a chain-link fence in 2003, and installed drainage pipes in 2011. Norfolk Railway paid the property taxes and periodically listed the parcels for sale; NC Enterprises asserted adverse possession in 2020 and filed suit in 2021.
Procedural history
NC Enterprises sued to establish title by adverse possession, quiet title, and recover damages for unjust enrichment. The Summit County Court of Common Pleas granted NC Enterprises summary judgment on adverse possession but did not resolve unjust enrichment. The Ninth District affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate judgment, directed entry of summary judgment for Norfolk Railway on adverse possession, and remanded for consideration of the unjust-enrichment claim.
Remand instructions
The trial court must grant Norfolk Railway's motion for summary judgment on NC Enterprises' adverse-possession claim and consider NC Enterprises' unresolved unjust-enrichment claim.