Evanich v. Bridge - 2008-Ohio-3820, 119 Ohio St. 3d 260, 893 N.E.2d 481

Rule:

In a claim for adverse possession, intent is objective rather than subjective in determining whether the adversity element of adverse possession has been established, and the legal requirement that possession be adverse is satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that for 21 years the claimant possessed property and treated it as the claimant's own.

Facts:

Appellees William Evanich and his wife purchased their property as an unimproved sublot in 1965. To confine the landscaping to his own property, Evanich self-surveyed the land; however, the self-survey included 97/10,000ths of an acre that belonged to the adjacent lot. Unaware of this encroachment, Evanich landscaped along what he assumed was his lot line, installing a split rail fence, decorative railroad ties, and a variety of plantings, among other items. When appellants Steven and Margaret Bridge purchased the adjacent lot in 1977, Evanich's landscaping was in place. When the Bridges surveyed their lot in 2002 and discovered the encroachment, they sent a letter to the Evaniches requesting removal of the landscaping. The Evaniches refused, and instead filed a complaint to obtain a declaration of their rights through adverse possession, seeking to quiet title against the Bridges and obtain free and clear title to the disputed land. The trial court found that the claim for adverse possession was proven by a preponderance of the evidence and entered judgment in favor of the Evaniches. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. On further appeal, the Bridges argued that the Evaniches were required to show that they took possession of the land with the intent to claim title to it.

Issue:

In order to claim ownership through adverse possession, should a party in possession show that he intended to deprive the owner of the property in question?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The supreme court found that in a claim for adverse possession, intent was objective rather than subjective in determining whether the adversity element of adverse possession had been established, and the requirement that possession be adverse was satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that for 21 years the claimant possessed property and treated it as the claimant's own. According to the court, to eliminate the doctrine of adverse possession entirely would upset settled law, for the doctrine had its place in the regulation of the use and ownership of real property in Ohio. Moreover, the court held that there was no error in the court of appeals’ conclusion that the appellees took possession of the property via adverse possession since they had acted in a way consistent with true ownership by installing landscaping that included railroad ties, stone blocks, fencing, bushes, flowers, and at least one tree. The appellees possessed the necessary intent based on their exclusive control over the property for 35 years.