Ink v. City of Canton

Supreme Court of Ohio · Property

Propertyfuture interestseminent domainreverterdeterminable feepossibility of revertereminent domainpublic park

Facts

Land known as Ink Park was conveyed to the city by deeds requiring that it be used only as a public park and providing for reverter if that use ceased. Plaintiffs argued first that city acts before the appropriation proceedings had already breached the deed conditions, but the court accepted the Court of Appeals' factual findings rejecting that claim. The state then appropriated a substantial part of the park property, raising disputes over rights to the remaining usable park land and to the money paid for the land taken and for damage to the residue. The city had paid nothing to the grantor for the determinable fee created by the deeds.

Issue

When land conveyed to a city for use only as a public park, subject to reverter if that use ceases, is partially taken by eminent domain, who has rights in the remaining land and in the condemnation award: the city as holder of the determinable fee, the grantor's successors as holders of the possibility of reverter, or both? Also, does the condemnation itself cause an immediate reverter of the property?

Rule

Eminent domain does not automatically cause an immediate reverter of land conveyed in a determinable fee for a specified use. Where the grantee accepted such land for a specific public purpose and paid nothing for the determinable fee, the grantee must continue to hold both the remaining land and condemnation proceeds subject to the fiduciary obligation to use them for that specified purpose; any money the grantee does not propose to use, cannot reasonably use, or does not use for that purpose reverts to the grantor's successors. In addition, the amount, if any, by which the value of the land taken for any use exceeds its value limited to the specified use belongs to the grantor's successors, and compensation for structures built by the city belongs to the city free of the deed restrictions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Nora Bennett deeded 20 acres to the City of Maple Heights "only for use as a public botanical garden," with the land to revert if that use ceased. The city paid nothing for the land. Five years later, Ohio condemned 8 acres for a highway interchange, making garden use of that portion impossible.

What is the best statement of the effect of the condemnation on title to the condemned land and the remaining land?

Explanation. The majority rejected the view that eminent domain automatically causes an immediate reverter when land is held in a determinable fee for a specified public use. Where the grantee accepted the land for that use, the grantee continues to hold the remaining land subject to the fiduciary obligation to use it for that purpose, and the grantor's successors retain reverter rights if that use is not maintained.