Ink v. City of Canton
4 Ohio St. 2d 51, 212 NE 2d 574 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When property held as a determinable fee, granted for no consideration, is appropriated through eminent domain, the condemnation award is apportioned between the holder of the determinable fee and the holder of the possibility of reverter. The fee holder receives the value of the land for its restricted use, while the reverter holder receives the amount by which the property's unrestricted value exceeds its restricted value.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs' ancestors conveyed parcels of land to a city through two separate deeds.
- The deeds stipulated that the land was to be used exclusively as a public park, to be known as Ink Park.
- The city did not provide any monetary consideration for the land.
- The deeds included a condition that if the city ceased to use the land for park purposes, the property would revert to the grantors or their heirs.
- The state initiated eminent domain proceedings, appropriating a substantial portion of Ink Park.
- This appropriation by the state prevented the city from using the condemned portion of the land for park purposes.
- The state paid the city compensation for the land it appropriated and for damages to the remaining residue of the park.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs initiated a legal action concerning their rights to the Ink Park property and the condemnation award.
- The case was heard by a trial court which likely ruled in favor of the city.
- The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings of fact and, implicitly, its legal conclusion in favor of the city.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) then appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals 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:
When land granted to a city for no consideration, to be used exclusively for a specific purpose and subject to a reverter if that use ceases, is partially taken by eminent domain, is the grantor's possibility of reverter extinguished, thereby entitling the city to the entire condemnation award?
Opinions:
Majority - Taft, C. J.
No. When land held as a determinable fee granted without consideration is taken by eminent domain, the grantor's possibility of reverter is not extinguished, and the grantee is not entitled to the entire condemnation award. The majority rule, which gives the entire award to the grantee, results in an unfair windfall, especially when the grantee paid nothing for the property. The grantee would receive the value of an unrestricted fee, an interest it never possessed. A more equitable solution is to divide the award. The city, having accepted the land as a trust, must hold the remaining land and any funds received from the condemnation for park purposes. The portion of the award representing the value of the land for its restricted use belongs to the city, but it is held in trust. The amount by which the land's unrestricted value exceeds its restricted value represents an interest the grantor never conveyed and should therefore be paid to the grantor's heirs. Any part of the award for structures built by the city belongs to the city outright.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from the traditional, and still majority, rule that condemnation extinguishes a possibility of reverter and gives the entire award to the determinable fee owner. The court establishes a more equitable framework that prevents a windfall to a grantee who, having paid nothing for the land, would otherwise profit from the condemnation. By creating a specific formula for apportionment based on restricted versus unrestricted value, the court protects the grantor's reversionary interest. This case provides a strong precedent for courts to look beyond the harshness of the traditional rule and divide condemnation awards in a manner that reflects the actual property interests held by each party.
Unlock the full brief for Ink v. City of Canton