Acorn Dev. v. The Sanson Co.

• Docket Number: 110530,111003
• Decision Date: 28 July 2022
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 2576
• Parties: ACORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE SANSON COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2022-Ohio-2576

ACORN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE SANSON COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 110530, 111003

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

July 28, 2022

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-20-932231

The Law Offices of David M. Leneghan, David M. Leneghan, and K Scott Carter, for appellant.

Hanna Campbell & Powell, LLP, J. Anthony Coleman, and R Brian Borla, for appellee.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Acorn Development, LLC ("Acorn"), appeals the trial court's judgment granting defendant-appellee The Sanson Company's ("Sanson"), motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Procedural History and Factual Background

{¶ 2} Both Acorn and Sanson run commercial businesses with bases of operation in the city of Cleveland. Acorn owns property known as parcel no. 123-12-010 ("Parcel 10"). Parcel 10 contains a large building that stretches to the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the property with loading docks on the south side of the building that are used to receive and make shipments. Parcel 10 is effectively landlocked and can be accessed from a driveway off of East 37th Street. The driveway is owned by Sanson.

{¶ 3} Sanson and related entities own property designated permanent parcel nos. 123-12-005 ("Parcel 5"), 123-12-006 ("Parcel 6"), 123-12-007 ("Parcel 7"), 123-12-008 ("Parcel 8"), and 123-12-009 ("Parcel 9"). Parcel 9 contains the driveway that abuts Parcel 10 on the south side.

{¶ 4} In April 2020, Acorn filed suit against Sanson alleging tortious interference with Acorn's right to use the driveway on Parcel 9 (the "easement"). On June 3, 2020, Sanson filed an answer and also counterclaimed in quiet title. Specifically, in its counterclaim, Sanson argued that the easement in question was expressly created in a lease, and that the lease, as well as the easement, expired on October 14, 2017. Sanson also referenced prior litigation in two cases both of which found that there was an easement over Parcel 9 for the benefit of Parcel 10. Sanson argued that the findings in those cases were no longer relevant because the easement had expired. Sanson requested declaratory judgment and/or a judicial determination quieting title to Parcel 9.

{¶ 5} In December 2020, Acorn filed its first amended complaint adding a claim that Sanson had violated an implied easement over Parcel 9, in addition to the tortious interference claim. Sanson renewed its counterclaim, arguing that any easement had expired and was no longer in effect.

{¶ 6} On March 5, 2021, Sanson filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to the amended complaint, which Acorn opposed by motion on April 2, 2021. On April 28, 2021, the trial court granted Sanson's motion "for the reasons argued in the motion." Acorn filed a notice of appeal on May 26, 2021.

{¶ 7} On October 1, 2021, this court remanded the case to the trial court noting:

In this case, the defendant counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment on the existence of an easement. The judge granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings "for the reasons argued in the motion." However, in a declaratory judgment action, the trial court must declare all the of the parties' rights and obligations in order to constitute a final, appealable order. Klocker v. Zeiger, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92044, 2009-Ohio-3102. Referencing the reasons in the dispositive motion does not do that. Accordingly, in order to avoid a possible jurisdictional impediment, this court remands the case to the trial court for a full declaration of rights and obligations by October 29, 2021.

{¶ 8} After remand, the trial court granted Sanson's motion for judgment on the pleadings, noting:^[1]

The amended complaint essentially alleges that Sanson was interfering with Acorn's easement - "implied or otherwise" - and seeks damages and "a finding that Plaintiff [Acorn] has easement rights over [Parcel 9] [owned by Sanson] for the benefit of [Parcel 10]."

By its counterclaim, Sanson seeks to quiet title in its favor with a declaration "that it owns [Parcel 9] free and clear of any easements and that the [Acorn], has no legal rights or interests in [Parcel 9]."

Sanson then filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings currently under consideration. The gist of Sanson's argument is that Acorn's easement, as declared in the 2014 litigation, arose from the 90-year lease and it therefore expired in 2017. Additionally, because the easement was express it cannot also be considered to be implied, i.e., the easement did not become implied upon the expiration of the 90-year express easement.

Sanson's arguments and authorities are persuasive. Accordingly, Sanson's motion for judgment on the pleadings - including the counterclaim for declaratory judgment and Acorn's complaint seeking a finding that Plaintiff has easement rights over [Parcel 9] for the benefit of [Parcel 10] - is granted and the following declaration of the rights and obligations of the respective parties is made:

1. [Acorn's] express easement as declared in case numbers CV 02 475046 and CV 14 82668 was created by the 1927 lease and it expired in October 2017;

2. [Acorn] does not have an implied easement over [Sanson's] property, in particular [Parcel 9], for access to, or any other use of, [Parcel 10]; and

3. [Sanson's] title to [Parcel 9] is free and clear of any easements for the benefit of [Parcel 10].

{¶ 9} Acorn appeals and assigns the following errors for our review.

Assignment of Error No. 1

The Trial Court erred as a matter of law when it considered facts outside the pleadings when it granted Defendant/Appellee's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Assignment of Error No. 2

The Trial Court erred as a matter of law when it found Plaintiff/Appellant did not have an easement over Defendant/Appellee's property to access Plaintiff/Appellant's property.

Law and Analysis

{¶ 10} For ease of discussion, we will address the assignments of error out of order. In its second assignment of error, Acorn argues that the trial court erred finding the easement over Parcel 9 had expired based on a 1927 lease and should not have granted Sanson's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Standard of Review

{¶ 11} Preliminarily, a judgment on the pleadings deals solely with issues of law, therefore our review is de novo. New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Buehrer Group Architecture & Eng., Inc., 157 Ohio St.3d 164, 2019-Ohio-2851, 133 N.E.3d 482, ¶ 8, citing Ray ess v. Educational Comm. For Foreign Med. Graduates, 134 Ohio St.3d 509, 2012-Ohio-5676, 983 N.E.2d 1267, ¶ 18. De novo review requires an independent examination of the record and law without deference to the trial court's decision. Torres v. Concrete Designs, Inc., 2019-Ohio-1342, 134 N.E.3d 903, ¶ 48 (8th Dist.), citing Gateway Consultants Group, Inc. v. Premier Physicians Ctrs. Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104014, 2017-Ohio-1443, ¶ 22, citing Demeraski v. Bailey, 2015-Ohio-2162, 35 N.E.3d 913, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.).

{¶ 12} A judgment on the pleadings limits our review "solely to the allegations in the complaint and answer, as well as any material attached as exhibits to those pleadings." Schmitt v. Educational Serv. Ctr., 2012-Ohio-2208, 970 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 569, 664 N.E.2d 931 (1996). Further, we must consider the factual allegations in the complaint as true, although unsupported conclusions are insufficient to defend against the motion. Pincus v. Dubyak, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110135, 2021-Ohio-3034, ¶ 17.

{¶ 13} When a defendant requests judgment on the pleadings, it is appropriate to grant the motion when the plaintiffs complaint has failed to allege facts that, if true, would establish the defendant's liability. Id. at ¶ 17, citing Walters v. First Natl. Bank of Newark, 69 Ohio St.2d 677, 433 N.E.2d 608 (1982). In other words, to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court must determine that no material factual issues exist and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id., quoting Midwest Pride IV, Inc. at 570.

Express or Implied Easement

{¶ 14} In the instant case, the parties agree to the existence of an easement. However, the parties dispute whether the easement was created by express grant or by implication and whether it continues to exist. Nonetheless, the parties do not dispute the underlying facts giving rise to the litigation. Sanson does not dispute that it blocked Acorn's access to the loading docks. Sanson argues it owns Parcel 9 free of any easement and may use its property as it chooses. In contrast, Acorn argues that it has an easement implied by prior use or implied by necessity over Parcel 9 that was not terminated by the lease and, therefore it still has a right to use the driveway.

{¶ 15} We must first, then, examine the nature of easements. By definition, an easement "is a property interest in the land of another that allows the owner of the easement 'a limited use of the land in which the interest exists.'" Merrill Lynch Mtge. Lending, Inc. v Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 9th Dist. Summit No. 24943, 2010-Ohio-1827, ¶ 10, quoting Colburn v. Maynard, 111 Ohio App.3d 246, 253, 675 N.E.2d 1333 (4th Dist.1996). "An express easement may be created by grant, or by reservation or exception in a deed." Id., citing Gateway Park, LLC v. Ferrous Realty, Ltd., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91082, 2008-Ohio-6161, ¶ 29. The grant may also be included in the language of a lease or similar document. Kamenar R. S., Inc. v. Ohio Edison Co., 79 Ohio...