Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; August 31, 2009; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Defendants-appellants Gary L. Puckett and Deborah J. Puckett appeal a ruling from the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas that granted plaintiffs-appellees Roger and Nancy McCumbers an easement by estoppel over a driveway on land owned by the Pucketts. The McCumberses own property in Good Hope, Ohio, adjacent to the Pucketts’ property, which includes a strip of land that provides access to both properties. The Pucketts installed a gravel driveway on this strip in 1979, which the McCumberses’ predecessors helped fund. In 2000, the Pucketts paved the driveway, and at one time, the families were friendly, with Gary even constructing a kitchen extension for the McCumberses.
In 2004, Gary agreed to build a garage for the McCumberses but stopped work in 2005, leading them to hire someone else to finish it. A dispute arose in 2006 over mailbox locations, with Gary threatening to block the McCumberses' access to their garage. Following this, the McCumberses filed a complaint claiming an easement based on their longstanding use of the driveway since at least 1963. After a trial, the court found against the McCumberses on adverse possession but granted them an easement by estoppel, defining it for ingress and egress purposes with a specific surveyed width.
The Pucketts now claim the trial court erred in establishing the easement by arguing there was no evidence of misrepresentation or fraudulent failure to speak on their part. The McCumberses contend there was sufficient evidence to support their claim for an easement by estoppel or a prescriptive easement.
An appellate court will uphold a trial court's determination of an easement if supported by competent, credible evidence addressing essential elements, as established in Cadwallader v. Scovanner. An easement allows limited use of another's land, distinguishing between the dominant estate (benefiting from the easement) and the servient estate (burdened by it). Easements may arise from express or implied grants, prescription, or estoppel. The McCumberses' claim for a prescriptive easement was rejected because such easements require clear and convincing evidence of open, notorious, adverse, continuous use for at least 21 years, which was not met since their use was deemed permissive. Conversely, the trial court affirmed the existence of an easement by estoppel, recognizing that the McCumberses were permitted to use the Pucketts' driveway without objection, and had made investments in reliance on that permission. The court referenced the Restatement of the Law 3d, Property, indicating that a landowner can be estopped from denying an easement if they allowed another to use their land under circumstances where the user reasonably relied on that permission.
Failure to object to improvements made on land may result in estoppel against the landowner if they are aware or should be aware that the improvements were based on the investor's mistaken belief of a nonrevokable right to use the land. In this case, the Pucketts allowed the McCumberses to build a garage adjacent to their driveway, leading the McCumberses to reasonably rely on the belief that they had a right to access the driveway for their garage. Evidence showed Gary McCumberses completed 80 to 90 percent of the garage before halting construction and was aware that the garage's doors faced the driveway. The trial court found it unconscionable to deny the McCumberses an easement over the driveway.
The Pucketts contested that they never permitted the McCumberses to use the driveway, but evidence indicated the garage was constructed next to it. They further argued that the McCumberses could access the garage from another side of their property, which was deemed irrelevant since the garage was built on the eastern side adjacent to the driveway. The Pucketts claimed they made no misrepresentation regarding the easement and that the McCumberses were aware they lacked one. However, the McCumberses believed they owned part of the driveway and did not ask for permission because of this belief.
Since Gary McCumberses did not address the lack of an easement before starting construction, the trial court’s finding that he should be estopped from denying the McCumberses an easement was justified. The Pucketts' first assignment of error was overruled. In their second assignment, the Pucketts contended the trial court improperly granted an easement by estoppel that extended 16 feet beyond the garage without evidence to support this dimension. They argued that the McCumberses never claimed to use the entire width of the strip or specified dimensions needed, labeling the trial court's decision as arbitrary and lacking evidentiary basis.
When determining the dimensions of an easement, a trial court must assess what is reasonably necessary for the easement's intended purpose. The decision will not be overturned unless there is a lack of competent, credible evidence supporting the essential elements of the case. Dimensions not specified by the easement's creating instrument should be those necessary for enjoyment of the servitude. In this instance, the McCumberses were granted an easement for access to their property, including a garage, which extends 33.80 feet wide along Washington-Good Hope Road and 16 feet south of the garage. Evidence showed that this extension was needed for maneuvering out of the garage and maintaining a garden, but no evidence justified extending the easement's width to include an area between the driveway and a neighboring property. Therefore, the trial court is directed to narrow the easement’s width accordingly. The Pucketts’ second assignment of error is partially sustained, with the trial court's judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, leading to a remand for further proceedings.
