Grace v. Koch
692 N.E.2d 1009, 81 Ohio St. 3d 577 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To acquire title by adverse possession in Ohio, a party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that their use of the property was exclusive, open, notorious, continuous, and adverse for a period of twenty-one years.
Facts:
- The Kochs and Grace were owners of adjacent properties with a strip of land legally belonging to Grace separating them.
- The Kochs asked Grace's parents, the previous owners, for permission to mow the grass on the strip of land.
- For over 21 years, the Kochs used the strip by mowing it, parking cars, placing firewood and oil drums, allowing their children to play, and installing a swing set.
- Mr. Koch conceded that he knew the strip of land belonged to Grace and that he never would have used it without permission.
- In July 1992, Anthony Koch began spreading gravel over the strip, prompting Grace to take action to stop him and assert ownership.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kochs and Grace litigated the ownership of a strip of land in the trial court, where the Kochs asserted a claim for adverse possession.
- The trial court found in favor of the Kochs, granting them title by adverse possession.
- Grace, as the appellant, appealed to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding the Kochs had not established title by adverse possession.
- The Kochs, as the appellants, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Kochs' use of a strip of their neighbor's land satisfy the 'adverse' element required to acquire title by adverse possession, when they initially asked for permission to mow the land and acknowledged they knew it was not their own?
Opinions:
Majority - Pfeifer, J.
No. The Kochs' use of the land did not satisfy the 'adverse' element required for adverse possession because it originated with permission and lacked the requisite hostile intent. The court first established that adverse possession claims must be proven by the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence, as the doctrine is disfavored because it results in the forfeiture of title without compensation. To be 'adverse,' possession must be accompanied by an intent to claim title, manifested by acts that notify the true owner of a hostile claim, metaphorically to 'unfurl his flag on the land.' The Kochs' initial request for permission to mow the strip and Mr. Koch's admission that he knew the land belonged to Grace defeated any claim of adversity. Their subsequent uses of the land, while continuous, were insufficient to put Grace on notice of a hostile invasion of his property rights under the clear and convincing evidence standard.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes 'clear and convincing evidence' as the standard of proof for all adverse possession claims in Ohio, aligning the state with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions. By elevating this standard, the court makes it significantly more difficult for claimants to succeed, thereby strengthening protections for legal titleholders. The ruling emphasizes that use beginning with permission cannot become adverse unless the claimant makes a clear and unequivocal repudiation of that permission, putting the owner on notice of a hostile claim. This precedent reinforces the disfavored nature of adverse possession and clarifies that mere long-term use, even if extensive, is insufficient without proof of a truly hostile and notorious intent to claim ownership.
