An Ohio Court of Appeals recently affirmed a determination that adverse possession had been achieved, even though conflicting testimony was presented on that subject at Trial.  Lloyd v. Newland, 2021-Ohio-2342.

In that case, Lloyd purchased property in 1997 that was adjacent to an overgrown lot owned by Newland.  A couple of months later, Lloyd requested that Newland and her sons clean-up and maintain the Newland property.  Nevertheless, several months later, the Newland property remained overgrown, and so Lloyd cleared it, and began taking care of the Newland property.  According to Lloyd, he then proceeded to mow the grass, built a pitching mound, filled in a valley, and planted a garden – all on the Newland property.

Newland testified that she did not pay much attention to her property, although she noticed that the grass had been cut, but didn’t know by whom.  In October of 2019, Lloyd filed a Complaint, asserting adverse possession of the Newland property.  Lloyd denied ever asking for anyone’s permission to do anything with the Newland property.  Therefore, there was contradicting evidence as to the adversity element of adverse possession.  However, the Trial Court found Lloyd’s testimony was more credible, and ultimately concluded that Lloyd acquired title by adverse possession.

The Appellate Court found that testimony was introduced at the Trial that Lloyd used the Newland property exclusively, and that Lloyd’s use was continuous, adverse, notorious, and open for more than 21 years.  Although there was conflicting evidence presented at Trial on the adversity element, the Trial Court was in the best position to determine whose testimony was more credible, and the Trial Court believed Lloyd’s testimony.  Thus, the Court of Appeals found that Lloyd provided clear and convincing evidence supporting each element of adverse possession and upheld the Trial Court’s decision.

Adverse possession is one of very few ways that ownership of real estate may be different than the public records reflect.  When purchasing real estate, be mindful of whether the elements of adverse possession might have been satisfied by someone else.  Obtain a survey, and make part of your due diligence whether and how the property you are purchasing is being used by others, and consult with counsel who has experience with these issues if you have any doubt or any questions whatsoever.

Governor DeWine signed House Bill 126 on April 21, 2022, and it will officially become the law of Ohio 90 days later on July 21, 2022.  Passage of House Bill 126 is a great step in the right direction for the commercial real estate industry, and our lawyers were active in the process to help make this happen.

To learn more about the passage of this legislation, click here to review the final version of House Bill 126 that was passed.

Omni Title’s General Counsel, Rick Craven, recently testified before the Ohio House Finance Committee on behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association, in support of Ohio House Bill 237, which would improve multiple facets of Ohio real estate title law, including electronic recording, access to real property records, powers of attorney, lien priority, and judgment liens.

If it becomes law, this proposed Bill would require County Offices throughout Ohio to accept documents electronically for recording and to provide access to records electronically going back to at least 1980.  Additionally, language that our lawyers drafted was amended into HB 237 to improve Ohio judgment lien law and to codify the Restatement view of mortgage subrogation in lien priority cases.

Check out Rick Craven’s impressive testimony in support of HB 237 by clicking here to view a video of the Hearing before the Ohio House Finance Committee, during which Rick explained the Bill and its contours extremely well to the members of that inquisitive legislative body.

The Ohio House of Representatives unanimously rejected the Ohio Senate’s amended version of House Bill 126 that would have changed Ohio law to only allow school boards to file complaints to increase value in response to a complaint to reduce value.  That Bill now heads to a Conference Committee with select members of the House and Senate set to determine its fate.

Omni Title LLC is excited to announce that the talented title professionals at The Title Company, Ltd., a title agency that has been conducting business for over 22 years, have joined the Omni Title team.  In doing so, we are welcoming five new team members to join our already remarkable team, to bring our title and escrow team to a total of 15 team members throughout Ohio.

We are excited about this next phase of our journey, and we know that you will experience an even higher level of service that we have been fortunate to provide to our Clients over the past 18 years, now fortified by an even deeper bench of extremely talented title and escrow professionals who share our primary core value of having genuine care and concern for your success and well-being.

Ohio’s Eleventh District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s judgment in favor of a Defendant that pled adverse possession in response to a civil trespass claim.  Hedrick v. Szep, 2021-Ohio-1851.

Ohio’s Eleventh District Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, finding that the undisputed evidence established that the fence had been in place since at least 1991, and that the disputed property had been exclusively possessed by the Defendant and the prior owner in an open, notorious, continuous, and adverse manner for more than 21 years.

Adverse possession is one of very few ways that ownership of real estate may be different than the public records reflect.  When purchasing real estate, you should be mindful of whether the elements of adverse possession might have been satisfied by someone else, despite what the public records show about ownership.  Always obtain a survey, and make part of your due diligence whether and how the property you are purchasing is being used by others.

The Ohio Land Title Association’s November 2021 issue of Title Topics featured an article by Omni Title’s President, Mike Sikora,  on an Ohio Appellate Court decision that addressed the power of enforcement of express easement rights and their interpretation.

Check out that article in OLTA Title Topics here.

The November edition of American Land Title Association’s The Docket and TitleNews Online publications featured Omni Title’s President Mike Sikora’s article on a recent Ohio Appellate Court decision that addressed the power of enforcement of express easement rights and their interpretation.

Check out that article by clicking here.

In a recent Ohio appellate court decision, the Appellate Court overturned a trial court decision that had determined that the existence of a sales contract negated the adversity required to establish ownership by adverse possession.  See Hampton v. Lively, 2020-Ohio-4713.

In Hampton, suit was brought by the Estate of Carol Jean Hampton (the “Estate”) against Chad Lively (“Lively”), who was the record owner of a home, alleging that the Estate had obtained legal ownership of the property by adverse possession.  Lively acquired title to the property in 2016, through the estates of his deceased grandparents – Thomas and Loise Lively (“Lively Family”) – who had acquired title to the property in 1960 and remained the record owners.  It is undisputed, however, that Carol Jean Hampton (“Hampton”), her husband, and three sons all lived at the home from 1980 until 2012.

Ultimately, the trial court determined that the plaintiff  proved “exclusive possession and open, notorious, and continuous use of the property for a 21-year period.”  However, the trial court concluded that Hampton did not prove that the possession was adverse and therefore could not acquire title to the property by adverse possession.  The Estate then filed an appeal contending that the trial court erred by misapplying the meaning of “adverse,” as it relates to an adverse possession claim.

The Court noted that when “a buyer takes possession of property after paying the purchase price, the buyer manifests an intent to treat the property as his or her own because the buyer’s performance triggers the seller’s duty to convey legal title to the buyer.”   As such, because there was evidence that he accepted the check as payment for the property in 1980, as well as other evidence of a sale, Lively should have conveyed legal title to Hampton.  Having believed that Hampton had acquired title upon the purchase of the property, the Court of Appeals found that regardless of whether there was a valid deed of conveyance, Hampton adversely possessed the property by her actions with respect to the property for more than 21 years.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court concluded that the Estate established all of the elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, reversed the judgment of the trial court, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

To review the Hampton Decision, click here.

Ohio Senate Bill 57 passed the House on March 25, 2021.  If and when signed by Governor DeWine, it will allow property owners to seek a reduction in their real property taxable value due to COVID related circumstances that existed as of October 1, 2020.  That law requires the property owner to plead those circumstances with particularity in the tax reduction complaint.  To review Senate Bill 57, click here.