Evanich v. Bridge
893 N.E.2d 481, 119 Ohio St. 3d 260 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for adverse possession is determined by the claimant's objective intent to possess and treat the property as their own for the statutory period, not by their subjective intent or knowledge of who holds the true title. A claimant's mistaken belief that they own the property does not defeat their claim.
Facts:
- In 1965, William and Roselyn Evanich purchased an unimproved sublot.
- In 1967, William Evanich conducted a self-survey to mark his property line for landscaping, mistakenly including a small strip of the adjacent lot.
- Unaware of the error, Evanich installed a split rail fence, decorative railroad ties, and various plantings on the disputed strip of land, intending only to landscape his own property.
- In 1977, Steven and Margaret Bridge purchased the adjacent lot, at which time the Evaniches' landscaping was already in place.
- The Evaniches continuously maintained the landscaping on the disputed strip for over two decades.
- In 2002, the Bridges had their property professionally surveyed, which revealed the Evaniches' encroachment.
- The Bridges sent a letter to the Evaniches requesting the removal of the landscaping.
- The Evaniches refused the Bridges' request to remove the items.
Procedural Posture:
- William and Roselyn Evanich filed a complaint in the trial court against Steven and Margaret Bridge to quiet title to the disputed land through adverse possession.
- The trial court found for the Evaniches using a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard.
- The Bridges (appellants) appealed, and the case was remanded for the trial court to re-evaluate using the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard.
- On remand, the trial court again entered judgment for the Evaniches (appellees).
- The Bridges (appellants) appealed a second time, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the Bridges' (appellants') discretionary appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim for adverse possession require a showing of subjective intent to claim title to property owned by another?
Opinions:
Majority - Lanzinger, J.
No. A claim for adverse possession does not require a showing of subjective intent to deprive the owner of the property; rather, it is established by objective evidence that the claimant possessed the property and treated it as their own. The court's inquiry focuses on the claimant's visible acts of possession, not the 'recesses of his mind, his motives or purposes.' Citing the long-standing precedent of Yetzer v. Thoman (1866), the court reaffirmed that title can be acquired through adverse possession 'irrespective of any question of motive or of mistake.' The court clarified that any confusion stemming from Grace v. Koch (1998) was related to the standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence), not a change in the required intent. The Evaniches' actions of installing fencing, railroad ties, and plantings, and maintaining them for 35 years, were sufficient objective evidence of their intent to possess, regardless of their initial mistake about the boundary line.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the long-standing objective standard for the 'adverse' or 'hostile' element in Ohio's adverse possession doctrine. It explicitly rejects the minority view that requires a claimant to have a subjective, bad-faith intent to take another's property. By doing so, the court provides stability and predictability in property law, ensuring that claims are judged on visible actions rather than difficult-to-prove mental states. This holding protects the claims of good-faith possessors who act under a mistake of fact, solidifying that the doctrine's purpose is to settle land titles based on long-standing, open possession.
