Articles
Practice Areas
Industries
Attorneys
Mowing the Grass Not Enough to Claim Adverse Possession
The Law
For nearly two centuries in Ohio, one entity may claim ownership of property held by another through a claim for “adverse possession.” Henrietta Township v. Brownhelm Township, decided in 1839, stated, “residence must not only be continuous, it must also be open and notorious . . . .” Additional case law held that the activities constituting adverse possession had to occur for at least 21 years.
The Question
A case before the Ohio Supreme Court hinged on whether or not the plaintiff could claim adverse possession of property held by the defendant through lawn maintenance activities, such as mowing and trimming, performed for over 21 years. Initially lower courts found in favor of the plaintiff.
The Court’s Findings
However, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded mowing and trimming were inadequate to satisfy the open and notorious standard needed for adverse possession. It emphasized that mere lawn maintenance does not sufficiently signal possession to the true owner. Additionally, more significant actions like installing fences and drainage improvements were initiated too late to count towards the 21-year requirement.
Key Takeaway
The decision underscores the stringent proof required for adverse possession, focusing on visible, enduring possession that unquestionably alerts the owner of the adverse claim to the property. It serves as a reminder for landholders to remain vigilant of activities on their property.
Eastman & Smith attorneys Nicholas W. Bartlett and Matthew D. Harper represented the defendant-property owner in this case. Should you have any questions regarding adverse possession, please contact Mr. Bartlett or Mr. Harper.
______________
Disclaimer: This alert has been prepared by Eastman & Smith Ltd. for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney/client relationship.
