J.T. Mgmt., an Ohio Ltd. v. Spencer
| Decision Date | 13 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2016-T-0021,CASE NO. 2016-T-0018 |
| Citation | 2017 Ohio 892 |
| Parties | J.T. MANAGEMENT, AN OHIO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PATRICIA L. SPENCER, et al., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Civil Appeals from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 2013 CV 01445 and 2013 CV 01653.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Randil J. Rudloff, Guarnieri & Secrest, P.L.L., 151 East Market Street, P.O. Box 4270, Warren, OH 44482 (For Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee).
David A. Detec and Adam V. Buente, Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman, The Commerce Building, Atrium Level Two, 201 East Commerce Street, Youngstown, OH 44503 (For Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants).
{¶1} Appellant, J.T. Management, an Ohio Limited Partnership, appeals the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, following a trial to the magistrate, finding appellant is not authorized to use its interest in a private driveway for commercial purposes. Appellees, Patricia L. Spencer, the other holders of an interest in the driveway, and the Hidden Hills Homeowners Association, cross-appeal the court's finding that appellant has an ownership interest in the driveway. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On July 11, 2013, appellant, a commercial real estate developer, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment. Appellant alleged it owns lot 9 in the Hidden Hills Subdivision in Howland Township and an undivided one-ninth interest in a private driveway in the subdivision known as "Hidden Hills Drive." Appellant alleged it and the owners of the other eight lots have an access right of way on the driveway.
{¶3} Appellant alleged it also owns a second 1.4-acre parcel on S.R. 46 at the intersection of Hidden Hills Drive and that the second parcel is subject to an easement that allows it to use Hidden Hills Drive for the benefit of this parcel. Appellant demanded judgment declaring it has a right to use the driveway in relation to its 1.4-acre parcel for any and all uses, including commercial traffic.
{¶4} Appellees, the owners of the remaining eight lots in the subdivision and the Hidden Hills Homeowners Association, filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. They also filed a counterclaim/cross claim, demanding judgment declaring that appellant does not have an ownership interest in the private driveway, but only a right of way easement to access S.R. 46 for residential use.
{¶5} The case was tried to the magistrate and submitted on the parties' briefs, stipulations, and joint exhibits.
{¶6} The evidence revealed that the Hidden Hills Subdivision, a secluded residential housing development, was created on November 24, 1978, with the recording of the Hidden Hills Plat, which depicted lots one through eight. The plat stated that each lot shall have an undivided one-eighth interest in the private drivewayto be known as Hidden Hills Drive. The lot owners own the land in the Hidden Hills Subdivision, including the private driveway, which is essentially a long residential driveway between S.R. 46 and the homes in the subdivision.
{¶7} On the same date, November 24, 1978, a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (Deed Restrictions) for the Hidden Hills Subdivision was recorded. The Declaration contained deed restrictions for the benefit of all lots in the subdivision. It also created a homeowner's association and a yearly maintenance fee to cover the cost of driveway maintenance and electricity.
{¶8} In November 1981, a replat of the subdivision, signed by all lot owners, was recorded, which included lot 9, and stated that the owners of each lot shall have an undivided one/ninth interest in Hidden Hills Drive.
{¶9} Appellant subsequently purchased two lots that abut the private driveway. In 2011, it acquired lot 9 in the subdivision by deed. As a result of appellant's ownership of lot 9 and the replat dividing ownership of the driveway, appellant argued it owned a one-ninth interest in the private driveway.
{¶10} In 2008, appellant acquired by deed a second lot (not part of the subdivision), which is a commercially-zoned, 1.4-acre parcel on S.R. 46, located in front of lot 9, at the intersection of Hidden Hills Drive. The address of this second parcel is 1849 Niles-Cortland Road (hereafter referred to "the 1849 lot"). Long before appellant acquired the 1849 lot, the prior owners of this lot had an implied easement by necessity over the subject driveway, which gave them access to S.R. 46. Thereafter, in October 1975, the then-owner of the 1849 lot reduced the implied easement to writing and expressly granted an easement to use the private driveway to appellant's predecessors-in-interest, their heirs and assigns. Thus, when appellant later acquired this lot in 2008, it also acquired an express easement in the private driveway.
{¶11} Appellant argued it was entitled to use the private driveway for commercial ingress and egress to a commercial structure it plans to build on the 1849 lot pursuant to (1) the express easement and (2) appellant's alleged one-ninth ownership interest in the private driveway.
{¶12} Following the magistrate's review of the parties' stipulations, exhibits, and trial briefs, she issued her decision on October 1, 2015, finding that appellant owns an undivided one-ninth interest in the private driveway. However, the magistrate found that the subdivision's deed restrictions limit use of the driveway to residential uses.
{¶13} The parties filed objections to the magistrate's decision. Thereafter, the trial court conducted an independent review of the objections and adopted and affirmed the magistrate's decision in its entirety. Specifically, the court found in favor of appellant on the issue of ownership and found that it is a one-ninth owner of the private driveway (Hidden Hills Drive) by virtue of its ownership of lot 9. However, the court found in favor of appellees on the issue of the use of the easement and ordered appellant not to increase the burden on or materially enlarge its right in the easement by using the private driveway for commercial ingress and egress.
{¶14} Appellant appeals and appellees cross appeal the trial court's judgment. Appellant asserts the following for its sole assignment of error:
{¶15} "The trial court erred in holding that JT could not use a portion of Hidden Hills driveway for commercial purposes incident to JT's adjoining commercial land."
{¶16} An easement is an interest in land created by grant or prescription that entitles the owner of the easement to a limited use of the land in which the easementexists. Alban v. R.K. Co., 15 Ohio St.2d 229, 231 (1968). An easement results in the creation of two estates: The dominant estate is the owner of the easement and the servient estate is the land subject to the easement. Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Ohio, Inc. v. Ryska, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2003-L-192, 2005-Ohio-3398, ¶24.
{¶17} In general, "[t]he abuse of discretion standard is * * * the appropriate * * * standard to apply when reviewing a trial court's adoption of a magistrate's decision." Harkey v. Harkey, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2006-L-273, 2008-Ohio-1027, ¶47. However, because this case was decided on the parties' factual stipulations and the magistrate's/court's construction of various legal instruments, including deeds, deed restrictions, contracts, plats, and zoning documents, the only issues presented here are legal questions that we review under the de novo standard of review. Allstate Indemn. Co. v. Collister, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2006-T-0112, 2007-Ohio-5201, ¶15.
{¶18} Appellant raises three issues under its assigned error. First, it argues it should be permitted to expand its express easement in the private driveway to use it for commercial purposes in connection with the 1849 lot because the area has changed from primarily residential to primarily commercial. In response, appellees argue that any commercial use will unreasonably increase the burden on the easement. The cases cited by appellant in support of this argument are inapposite as none of them held that use of an easement can be expanded from solely residential uses to include commercial uses.
{¶19} The Fifth District, in Solt v. Walker, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 95-CA-64, 1996 WL 363438 (May 13, 1996), succinctly stated the law regarding changes in the use of an easement:
{¶20} While an easement or right-of-way gives a landowner the right to enter and use the land of another, the owner of a dominant estate may not increase the burden nor materially enlarge his right over the servient estate. McKenzie v. Neville, 139 Ohio St. 136 (1941). An easement may be terminated where the owner of said easement attempts to enlarge or abuse it. Siferd v. Stambor, 5 Ohio App.2d 79 (3d Dist.1970). However, changes in the use of an easement are permitted to the extent that they result from "the normal growth and development of the dominant land," and are, therefore, a proper and reasonable use of the easement. Erie Railroad Co. v. S. H. Kleinman Realty Co., 92 Ohio St. 96 (1915). Solt, supra, at *1.
{¶21} Appellant's easement by its express terms allows the grantees of the 1849 lot, their heirs and assigns, to freely pass on foot, or with vehicles of every description, between S.R. 46 and its property. Any change in the use of the easement is only permitted if it results from normal growth and development of the dominant estate and is a proper and reasonable use of the easement. Erie. R. Co., supra; Solt, supra.
{¶22} Further, increased traffic on an access easement can result in an unreasonable enlargement and abuse of the easement. Id., at *2. The Fifth District in Solt identified certain factors that are pertinent in determining whether a dominant estate has unreasonably expanded the use of an access easement, such as 1) the amount of increased traffic on the easement; 2) the time of day...
To continue reading
Request your trial