Judge Patrick Dinkelacker this week issued a ruling in a case that has been simmering since December of 2024 in favor of our client, Lee Robinson, recognizing our client’s right to what Ohio law references as a “prescriptive easement” over portions of property on which a developer had planned to place retail shops, a boutique hotel, apartments and an underground parking garage.
The decision establishes our client’s right — acquired by usage and by operation of law (see below) — to have vehicular ingress and egress over portions of the developer’s property, meaning his accessway must be maintained as it is, and the grade of the entrance to our client’s parking lot must stay the same. Since the developer’s plan were to engage in construction activity blocking the easement area, and it planned to place buildings in the easement area and change the grade of the easement relative to our client’s parking lot, the developer is effectively prevented from moving forward with currently-planned development.
It is generally a surprise to lay persons (and some attorneys), but one can gain ownership of another’s property in most states (if not all), including Ohio and Kentucky, by continued occupancy and use of the property for a protracted period of time — in Ohio 21 years and in Kentucky 15 years. In law school we learn the five required elements to achieve this end as O.C.E.A.N.: Open, Continuous, Exclusive, Adverse and Notorious use and occupancy of the property. If proved, in Ohio by “clear and convincing evidence,” then the adverse possessor has full legal ownership of and title to the property.
A stranger to title can also acquire the lesser right of “easement” over another’s property by eliminating the “exclusive” part of the adverse possession requirements, so O.C.A.N, for the same 21-year period in Ohio, to establish what is known as a prescriptive easement. This easement is every bit as good or better than an easement given by express grant, and (for example) passes with title to the property benefitted by the easement.
It was precisely this type of “prescriptive easement” benefiting Finney Law Firm’s client’s property on Hyde Park Square that Judge Dinkelacker recognized by his decision this week.
The team that prepared and tried this case (the preliminary injunction hearing) were Christopher Finney, Julie Gugino, J. Andrew Gray, Mickey McClannahan, and Emma Friedhoff, among others, greatly aided by Steve Griffith of Taft Law. Our expert witness at trial was noted Clermont County attorney and title insurance agent Doug Thomson.
You may read the whole decision here: Robinson Decision
