Pinkerton v. Salyers
2015-Ohio-377 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prescriptive easement is established by clear and convincing evidence of open, notorious, adverse, and continuous use for 21 years, shifting the burden to the landowner to prove the use was permissive. Separately, an easement by estoppel arises when a landowner permits another to spend money in reliance on a purported easement without objection, making it inequitable to later deny the easement's existence.
Facts:
- In 1939, John L. Salyers, Jr.'s parents purchased a 46-acre tract of land that was not adjacent to a public road.
- From 1939 until 2012, the Salyers family and their guests continuously used a path across an adjacent 82-acre tract to access their property for farming, hunting, and other agricultural purposes.
- Over the years, the Salyers maintained the path, including an instance before 1986 when John Salyers, Jr. spent $1,400 to have it graveled.
- In 1986, Mead, a company that owned the 82-acre tract at the time, asked John Salyers, Jr. for his permission to install a cable and posts across the path, and both parties used their own locks on the cable.
- In 2010, David Pinkerton purchased the 82-acre tract.
- In 2012, Pinkerton denied the Salyers access to the path, which was their only means of accessing their 46-acre property.
Procedural Posture:
- David Pinkerton filed a complaint against the Salyers in the Ross County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) to quiet title to his property.
- The Salyers filed a counterclaim asserting they had an easement by prescription, estoppel, implication, and necessity.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found that the Salyers had established a private easement by prescription and estoppel.
- The trial court's judgment limited the easement's use to farming, hunting, and agricultural purposes and restricted it to the Salyers' private use.
- The Salyers, as Appellants, appealed to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District, challenging the limitations placed on the easement.
- Pinkerton, as Cross-Appellant, cross-appealed the trial court's fundamental finding that an easement existed.
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 family's use of a path across an adjacent property for over 70 years, without express permission from the owners and with expenditures on path maintenance, establish a private easement by prescription and estoppel?
Opinions:
Majority - Harsha, J.
Yes, the family's long-term, unpermitted use and maintenance of the path establishes a private easement by prescription and estoppel. For the prescriptive easement, the Salyers established by clear and convincing evidence that their use was open, notorious, and continuous for far more than 21 years. The use was 'adverse' because it was without the landowner's permission; John Salyers Jr.'s testimony that 'since nobody stopped me I had permission' implied a lack of express permission, not a grant thereof. Once the Salyers made this prima facie case, the burden shifted to Pinkerton to prove the use was permissive, which he failed to do. For the easement by estoppel, Pinkerton’s predecessors in interest permitted the Salyers to spend money to gravel and maintain the path without objection. It is inequitable to deny the easement when the Salyers reasonably relied on the landowners' acquiescence. The trial court's limitations on the easement's use to its historical purposes (farming, hunting, agriculture) and its private nature are also affirmed, as an easement holder may not increase the burden on the servient estate beyond its established use.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the established Ohio doctrines of prescriptive easement and easement by estoppel, serving as a cautionary tale for landowners. It clarifies that 'adverse' use does not require overt hostility but simply use without the servient owner's permission, and that a landowner's inaction in the face of a neighbor's long-term use and investment can result in the permanent forfeiture of the right to exclude. The ruling also solidifies the principle that the scope of such non-express easements is limited by their historical use, preventing the easement holder from unilaterally expanding the burden on the servient property.
