Fruth Farms v. Village of Holgate

• Citation: 442 F.Supp.2d 470
• Decision Date: 07 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 3:05CV7321.,3:05CV7321.
• Parties: FRUTH FARMS, Ltd., Plaintiff, v. The VILLAGE OF HOLGATE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

442 F.Supp.2d 470

FRUTH FARMS, Ltd., Plaintiff, v. The VILLAGE OF HOLGATE, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:05CV7321.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division.

August 7, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David S. Pennington, Wright Law, Dublin, OH, for Plaintiff.

Joan C. Szuberla, Spengler Nathanson, Shannon J. George, Ritter, Robinson, McCready & James, Toledo, OH, for Defendants.

ORDER

CARR, Chief Judge.

This is a civil rights case. Plaintiff Fruth Farms owns property over which the Village of Holgate, defendant, has an easement for access to an adjacent parcel it owns. This case involves a dispute between Fruth Farms and the Village over use of the easement, both in regards to who may use the easement and how much traffic over the easement is allowed.

Fruth Farms argues that the Village is exceeding the scope of the easement, giving rise to claims, inter alia, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Due process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Fruth Farms also claims the Village is violating Article I of the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio state law prohibiting the creation of a nuisance, conversion, and invasion of privacy. The Village argues that use of the easement has no limitations, so long as the easement is used for its stated purposes (namely, access to and maintenance of a sewer line).

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Pending are counter motions for summary judgment regarding the meaning and effect of the easement's language. For the following reasons, both the Village's and Fruth Farms' motions for summary judgment shall be denied.

Factual Background

This dispute concerns two parcels located in Flatrock Township near State Route 18 in Henry County, Ohio. In 1974, the Village acquired a 20-acre parcel from George Nicely. Along with the parcel, the Village was granted an easement over a 55-acre portion retained by Nicely. The easement was necessary because the Village's parcel would be landlocked and inaccessible without the easement.

In 1979, Fruth Farms acquired the Nicely property. Its deed stated:

Said premises are subject to an easement executed by George W. Nicely [...] to the Village of Holgate, a municipal corporation, its successors and assigns, being a permanent easement 30.00 feet in width for an access drive and for the right to construct, maintain, operate and repair a sanitary sewer line over and through the real estate of Grantor ....

(Ex. 4).

The easement has a 1,900-foot-long stone driveway. The Village has maintained the easement, keeping it covered with gravel. In the late 1970s, the Village constructed lagoons on its 20-acre parcel. The lagoons are part of the Village's sanitary sewer system. The parcel is fenced and gated.

Fruth Farms contends that, sometime in 2005, the Village established a public waste disposal site on its 20-acre parcel. Fruth Farms states that Village residents began to travel on the easement to get to the dump. Fruth Farms repeatedly demanded that the Village stop the public from using the easement to access and use the dump.

Fruth Farms installed a gate to keep out members of the public, while giving a key to the gate to Village officials so that Village employees could access the Village's parcel. Fruth Farms accuses Village officials of intentionally leaving the gate unlocked on a daily basis, thereby enabling anyone to use the easement to get to the dump.

The Village contends the easement has always been used in the same manner. The Village states the parcel had been used for yard waste disposal before Fruth Farms purchased the servient tenement. It also alleges that Fruth Farms was aware of this use of the easement when it purchased its land.

Fruth Farms filed this lawsuit on August 2, 2005, alleging that the Village was violating the terms of the easement by unlawfully expanding its use. The Village maintains that the language of the deed creating the easement puts no limits on how the easement may be used, provided it is used to access the 20-acre parcel.

The parties dispute the meaning and effect of the easement.

Fruth Farms contends only the Village as a municipal corporation, acting through its employees, may use the easement. Thus, according to Furth Farms, the general public—including Village residents— cannot use the easement to access the parcel.

The Village argues, however, that use of the access easement is unlimited and without restriction, so long as the easement is used to access its property. Thus, under the Village's view of the easement's language, who uses the easement—be it municipal employees or residents—is irrelevant, provided the reason the person uses the easement is to get to the Village-owned parcel.

Discussion

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In viewing the evidence, I must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Best v. Cyrus, 310 F.3d 932, 934 (6th Cir.2002); Nat'l Satellite Sports, Inc. v. Eliadis, Inc., 253 F.3d 900, 907 (6th Cir.2001). Summary judgment is warranted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Bell v. Marinko, 367 F.3d 588, 591 (6th Cir.2004) (citing Shah v. Deaconess Hosp., 355 F.3d 496, 498 (6th Cir.2004)).

An easement is a non-possessory interest in the land of another. Crane Hollow, Inc. v. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line, 138 Ohio App.3d 57, 66, 740 N.E.2d 328 (2000). There are two kinds of easements: easements in gross and easements appurtenant. See, e.g., Junction R.R. Co. v. Ruggles, 7 Ohio St. 1, 8 (1857); Warren v. Brenner, 89 Ohio App. 188, 192, 101 N.E.2d 157 (1951). An easement in gross is assigned to an individual person, does not run with the land, and cannot be assigned or inherited. Junction R.R. Co., 7 Ohio St. at 8. Easements appurtenant run with the land. Warren, 89 Ohio App. at 192, 101 N.E.2d 157. Ohio law disfavors easements in gross, and, as such, easements are not considered in gross "when it can be fairly construed to be appurtenant to some estate." Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Ohio v. Ryska, 2005 Ohio 3398, 2005 WL 1538259, *9 (Ohio Ct.App.2005).

The easement at issue here is appurtenant: it runs across the servient land owned by Fruth Farms to provide access for the otherwise land-locked dominant parcel owned by the Village.

An easement appurtenant gives rise to two estates: dominant and servient. The owner of the easement is referred to as the owner of the dominant estate. Myers v. McCoy, 2005 WL 1038871, *3 (Ohio App.). The land in which the interest exists is called the servient estate. Id. The owner of the dominant estate has the right to use the easement across the servient estate. Crane Hollow, Inc., 138 Ohio App.3d at 66, 740 N.E.2d 328.

The Village's 20-acre parcel is the dominant estate; Fruth Farms owns the servient estate.

1. No Dedication to Public Use

The Village makes several arguments in support of its contention that use of the easement is not restricted to its employees.

First, the Village contends the easement was dedicated to public use. That is incorrect. Section 5553.31 of the Ohio Revised Code governs dedication of public roads and states:

Any person may, with the approval of the board of county commissioners, dedicate lands for road purposes. A definite description of the lands to be dedicated with a plat of such lands thereto attached and signed by the party dedicating such lands, with the approval and acceptance of the board endorsed thereon, shall be placed upon the proper road records of the county in which such road is situated.

There have been no proceedings under O.R.C. § 5553.31 in regards to this easement. Likewise, nothing in the record indicates the original owner of the servient tenement intended the land to be a public way.

Next, the Village argues that a common law dedication of a public way has occurred. In Beauchamp v. Hamilton Township Trustees, 1994 Ohio App. LEIS 1877 (Ohio App.), according to the Village, a deed granting a county a right-of-way easement for a ditch was tantamount to dedicating the property for public use. That is an incorrect reading of Beauchamp: the easement at issue in that case specifically stated the grantor of the easement "dedicates to public use" the property in question. Id. at *2. The easement at issue here contains no such express dedication for public service and use. Under the terms of this easement, it is granted to the Village as a municipal corporation.

Public dedication can also occur through public use and acquiescence on the part of the owner of the servient tenement:

A common-law dedication of property to a public use may result from the use thereof by the public, with the mere silent acquiescence therein of the owner, for a period sufficient to warrant the inference, from such acquiescence, of an intention to make such dedication, even though such period be less than 21 years.

Doud v. Cincinnati, 152 Ohio St. 132, 135, 87 N.E.2d 243 (1949).

Fruth Farms has not, however, remained silent in the face of its belief that the easement is limited. Instead, it made frequent protests, erected a gate, and has brought this suit. These are not the acts of one who consents to how an easement is being used.

Therefore, the easement has not been dedicated to public use.

2. The Village Cannot Assign Its Interest in Easement to Villagers

The fact that the easement has not been dedicated to the public does not entirely...