Kienzle v. Myers

Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth District · 2006 · Property

PropertyEasementsEasement by estoppeleasement by estoppelexecuted parol licensepermissionreliancedetriment

Facts

In 1981, adjoining landowners Jo An Van Duyne and Ruth Bauer agreed that Bauer would install her sewer line through a trench running onto Van Duyne's property and then share a trench with Van Duyne's connector line to the public sewer. The pipes were buried about five and one-half feet deep, and Bauer proceeded with the installation after receiving Van Duyne's permission. Later owners of the Van Duyne property sought to terminate what they called a revocable license and demanded that the neighboring owners make other arrangements for the sewer line. The neighboring owners claimed they held an easement, including an easement by estoppel, to keep the sewer line in place.

Issue

Whether the neighboring owners' sewer line use of the adjoining property, originally undertaken with the predecessor owner's permission, ripened into an easement by estoppel. Also, whether the trial court properly rejected the neighbors' separate counterclaim for intentional destruction of vegetation.

Rule

An easement by estoppel may be found when a landowner misleads or causes another in any way to change position to that person's prejudice; where an owner permits another to expend money in reliance on a supposed easement, and in justice and equity should have disclaimed conflicting rights, the owner is estopped to deny the easement. Under the Restatement formulation adopted by the court, if injustice can be avoided only by establishment of a servitude, estoppel applies when the owner permits another to use the land under circumstances making it reasonably foreseeable that the user will substantially change position believing the permission will not be revoked, and the user does so in reasonable reliance. Prejudice in this context means detriment and can include not only expenditures of money but also forbearance of a right or a change in position that places access or use outside the user's control.

🔒

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, Lena Ortiz told her neighbor, Mark Ellison, that he could run an underground water service pipe across the edge of her lot so his renovated duplex could connect to a municipal main. Mark paid to install the line four feet below ground, and both expected the pipe to serve the duplex indefinitely. Five years later, Lena sold to Nora Pike, who demands removal because no written easement was ever granted.

What is the strongest argument that Mark has a right to keep the pipe in place?

Explanation. The majority held that easement by estoppel does not require a misrepresentation. It is enough that the owner permitted use under circumstances making it reasonably foreseeable the user would substantially change position believing the permission would not be revoked, and the user reasonably relied. Installing a buried utility line intended for long-term service is a nontemporary change in position. There is no prescriptive easement because the use was permissive, and no implied easement simply from neighboring ownership.