Kienzle v. Myers
853 NE 2d 1203, 167 Ohio App. 3d 78 … (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement by estoppel is created when a landowner gives permission for another to use the land, and the user reasonably relies on that permission to make a substantial change in their position, such as installing a permanent utility line, making the landowner's permission irrevocable to avoid injustice.
Facts:
- In 1981, adjoining neighbors Jo An Van Duyne and Ruth Bauer were both legally required to connect their homes to a new public sewer line.
- To avoid the substantial cost and inconvenience of excavating her own driveway, Bauer obtained verbal permission from Van Duyne to run her sewer connector pipe through a trench on Van Duyne's property.
- Relying on this permission, Bauer installed her sewer line in a shared trench on Van Duyne's property, burying the pipes five and a half feet deep.
- In 1987, the Susan S. Kienzle Trust acquired Van Duyne's property.
- In 1989, Michael and Joan Myers acquired Bauer's property.
- In 2003, counsel for the Kienzle Trust sent a letter to the Myerses attempting to terminate the permission for the sewer line, which they characterized as a 'revocable license,' and demanded they remove the pipe.
Procedural Posture:
- The Susan S. Kienzle Trust sued Michael and Joan Myers in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas (trial court), seeking to quiet title and enjoin the trespass of the sewer line.
- The Myerses filed a counterclaim, asserting they held an easement by estoppel, among other claims, and sought a declaration of their rights.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Kienzle Trust, ruling as a matter of law that no easement existed.
- Following a trial on damages and the counterclaim, the trial court awarded $14,000 to the Kienzle Trust and dismissed the Myerses' counterclaim.
- The Myerses, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth District, with the Kienzle Trust as the appellee.
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 an easement by estoppel arise when a landowner grants a neighbor permission to bury a sewer line across their property, and the neighbor reasonably relies on that permission by expending funds and forgoing the option to place the line on their own property?
Opinions:
Majority - Singer, J.
Yes. An easement by estoppel arises where a landowner's permission induces another to change their position in reasonable reliance that the permission will not be revoked. Here, Van Duyne gave Bauer permission to install a sewer line, an act that is not easily undone and implies permanence. Bauer reasonably relied on this permission by expending funds and, more importantly, changing her position to her detriment by forgoing the right to install the line on her own property, thereby placing her sewer access outside of her control. The trial court erred in finding no prejudice; the detriment was not merely the cost of installation but the forbearance of Bauer's right to control her own utility access. To revoke this permission after 25 years of reliance would be an injustice, thus creating an easement by estoppel.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the doctrine of easement by estoppel in Ohio, aligning it with the modern Restatement of Property. It broadens the concept of 'prejudice' or 'detriment' beyond mere financial expenditure to include the forbearance of a legal right, such as the right to place a utility line on one's own property. The ruling signals that courts will look at the nature of the permitted use (e.g., a permanent underground pipe) to infer the parties' intent regarding revocability. This precedent makes it more difficult for subsequent landowners to revoke long-standing, informal agreements for significant property uses that a neighbor relied upon.
