Court Opinion

ID: 9905365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 14:06:04.833222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:12.888325
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Johnson-White v. Houston, 2023-Ohio-4276.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                  FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                       HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 PAMELA JOHNSON-WHITE,                                :   APPEAL NO. C-230059
                                                          TRIAL NO. A-2104025
           Plaintiff -Appellee,                       :

     vs.                                              :
                                                              O P I N I O N.
 THOMAS EDWARD HOUSTON, JR.,                          :

           Defendant-Appellant,                       :

     and                                              :

 MISHA L. HOUSTON,                                    :

           Defendant.                                 :

Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 29, 2023

Kegler, Brown, Hill + Ritter, Matthew M. Zofchak and Maria Mariano Guthrie, for
Plaintiff-Appellee,

Yonas and Phillabaum, Hope E. Platzbecker and Jason Phillabaum, for Defendant-
Appellant.
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BOCK, Judge.

       {¶1}   When a new neighbor, defendant-appellant Thomas Houston,

prevented plaintiff-appellee Pamela Johnson-White from using an express easement

that had existed for more than 60 years, Johnson-White sued to enforce her right to

use the easement. The trial court granted Johnson-White’s motion for summary

judgment, which sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

       {¶2}   Houston appeals the trial court’s judgment, arguing that a genuine issue

of material fact existed as to whether Johnson-White had abandoned the easement

and that summary judgment was premature because Houston wished to conduct

additional discovery. Because Houston failed to present facts and evidence showing

that Johnson-White had abandoned the easement and failed to comply with Civ.R.

56(F), we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                               Facts and Procedure

       {¶3}   Johnson-White acquired title to 755 N. Fred Shuttlesworth Circle in

Cincinnati, Ohio (“Johnson-White’s property”) in 1989. An express easement existed

in favor of Johnson-White over the neighboring property at 761 N. Fred Shuttlesworth

Circle (“Houston’s property”) for more than 60 years.

       {¶4}   Before 1961, Johnson-White’s and Houston’s properties were a single

parcel. Around 1961, the then-owners of the single property divided it into what is

presently two lots. The deeds to both properties expressly provided for a driveway

easement across the Houston property. For decades, the properties were conveyed

with the easement reflected in deeds and chains of title.

                                           2
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶5}    The deed to Johnson-White’s property expressly states that the grant

included “an easement for driveway purposes” over the Houston property. Johnson-

White and her late husband had regularly used the easement since 1989.

       {¶6}   Houston purchased his property in May 2021. There were two quitclaim

deeds, neither of which referred to the easement. But the title policy provided to

Houston at closing identified the easement in his chain of title.

                            Johnson-White sued Houston

       {¶7}   Houston denied Johnson-White access to the easement. In November

2021, after months of being denied access, Johnson-White filed a verified complaint

for a declaratory judgment, adverse possession, prescriptive easement, and injunctive

relief in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Attached to her verified

complaint were, among other documents, (1) a professional survey of Houston’s

property with the easement highlighted; (2) a professional title search for the Houston

property showing that the deed chain reflects the easement; and (3) Hamilton County,

Ohio recorder’s office documents showing that the easement was transferred to the

current owners of each parcel.

       {¶8}   At a November 2021 hearing on Johnson-White’s motion for a

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the parties agreed to a

procedure for Johnson-White to use the easement during the pendency of the action.

Other than using the easement to tow some cars off of her property, Johnson-White

was prevented from further using it.

       {¶9}   Houston’s answer to the complaint denied the existence of the

easement. He filed a counterclaim, alleging trespass, unjust enrichment,

abandonment, and negligence, and sought to quiet title and attorney’s fees.

                                           3
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶10} Johnson-White denied all allegations in Houston’s counterclaim. In

July 2022, she moved for partial summary judgment on the declaratory-judgment

action and injunctive relief.

       {¶11} Houston’s “response to [Johnson-White’s] motion for summary

judgment” asked the trial court to dismiss the summary-judgment motion “pursuant

to Civ.R. 56(F).” Houston alleged that it was disputed whether (1) “the supposed

easement was validly created;” (2) the easement was valid due to it not being formally

documented, bargained for, or “consummated by the actual creation of shared

driveway;” (3) the easement was abandoned; (4) the purpose of the easement was

“dissolved” when Johnson-White installed a driveway on her property; and (5) the

“alleged easement is unconscionable” because it prevented Houston from parking his

car on his property.

       {¶12} Houston’s memorandum in opposition to Johnson-White’s motion

recited the summary-judgment standard, but he did not support his arguments with

evidence, nor did he include any analysis as to why Johnson-White was not entitled to

summary judgment. Instead, Houston’s memorandum in opposition stated that the

summary-judgment motion was premature because he had not yet deposed Johnson-

White. Further, Houston recited Civ.R. 56(F) language, asserting that he had “a

number of possible defenses once proper discovery is conducted.” He alleged that he

“had not been permitted” to engage in discovery by way of depositions, retention of

experts, and subpoenas. He asserted that Johnson-White “attempt[ed] to circumvent

the discovery process” by “provid[ing] notice of an expert five months after the initial

request” and “on the day when she filed her motion for summary judgment.” He

further argued that “the case is relatively new, and discovery is in the early stages as

                                           4
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

evidence [sic] by the fact Plaintiff has refused to permit depositions yet.” He requested

that the trial court dismiss Johnson-White’s motion or hold it in abeyance for the trial

court to enter a scheduling order with an expert disclosure and discovery deadline.

       {¶13} Johnson-White’s reply brief stated that Houston failed to file a separate

Civ.R. 56(F) motion, or support his request with an affidavit, as required by the rule.

Days later, Houston filed a notice of supplemental affidavit and exhibits “in support of

his Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

   The trial court denied the Civ.R. 56(F) request and granted summary judgment

       {¶14} The trial court entered summary judgment in Johnson-White’s favor.

First, it denied Houston’s Civ.R. 56(F) request because it was not separately filed as

required by the rule, was not supported by an affidavit, and did not show facts to be

discovered that would create a genuine dispute. Further, Houston did not state why

he could not present evidence that was sufficient to avoid summary judgment, or why

he failed to conduct sufficient discovery before Johnson-White filed her summary-

judgment motion.

       {¶15} Further, the trial court found that Johnson-White presented evidence

that an express easement had existed for more than 60 years on the parcels owned by

Johnson-White and Houston. The court determined that Johnson-White’s property

was “the dominant estate” as she held a “right without profit” that she could exercise

over Houston’s property, “the servient estate.” Further, the court found that the

easement ran with the land, not with any individual, and “nothing in the record

establishes subsequent behavior that would nullify the express easement.”

Accordingly, the court permanently enjoined Houston from interfering with Johnson-

White’s lawful use of the easement.

                                           5
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶16} The trial court dismissed Houston’s counterclaims, finding that the

easement was valid, Houston’s title expressly stated that it was “subject to an easement

for driveway purposes,” Johnson-White had not been unjustly enriched, and there was

no evidence that Johnson-White intended to abandon the easement.

       {¶17} Johnson-White later dismissed the remaining counts of adverse

possession and prescriptive easement. Houston moved for reconsideration, which the

trial court denied. Houston appealed.

                                 Law and Analysis

       {¶18} For ease of discussion, we address Houston’s assignments of error out

of order.

      A. Houston’s Civ.R. 56(F) request failed to meet the rule’s requirements.

       {¶19} Houston’s second assignment of error argues that the trial court erred

in denying his Civ.R. 56(F) request to dismiss or hold in abeyance Johnson-White’s

motion. “The decision to allow additional time under Civ.R. 56(F) falls within the trial

court’s sound discretion.” Bank of Am. NA v. Omega Design/Build Group, LLC, 1st

Dist. Hamilton No. C-100018, 2011-Ohio-1650, ¶ 40.

       {¶20} Under Civ.R 56(F), “a party opposing a motion for summary judgment

may move for a continuance where that party needs more time to conduct discovery.”

Taft, Stettinius, & Hollister, LLP v. Calabrese, 2016-Ohio-4713, 69 N.E.3d 72, ¶ 28

(1st Dist.). A party filing a Civ.R. 56(F) motion is required to support its motion with

“an affidavit establishing the reasons for the requested continuance.” Id.; Civ.R. 56(F).

       {¶21} In Calabrese, this court affirmed the trial court’s decision denying

Calabrese’s Civ.R. 56(F) motion. Calabrese at ¶ 27-28. First, we noted that Calabrese

had not supported the Civ.R. 56(F) motion with an affidavit. Id. at ¶ 28. Next, we

                                           6
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

determined,

       Calabrese * * * failed to file a separate and identifiable motion. See

       Civ.R. 7(B); Civ.R. 10. Rather, Calabrese merely stated on pages 19 and

       20 of his memorandum in opposition to summary judgment that in the

       event the trial court did not agree that there were issues of fact, then he

       was entitled to conduct full discovery before the summary judgment

       motion should be considered. This does not constitute a proper request

       under Civ.R. 56(F).

Id. at ¶ 28.

       {¶22} Like the appellant in Calabrese, Houston failed to file a separate

motion; instead, his request was tacked onto his response to Johnson-White’s

summary-judgment motion. Accordingly, his request was not a proper Civ.R. 56(F)

request. But even if we construed the portions of Houston’s response to Johnson-

White’s summary-judgment motion as a Civ.R. 56(F) motion, Houston failed to

support it with an affidavit until after Johnson-White pointed out his failure to do so

in his original response to her summary-judgment motion.

       {¶23} It was well within the trial court’s discretion to deny Houston’s request

for a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance. We overrule Houston’s second assignment of error.

      B. The trial court properly awarded Johnson-White summary judgment.

       {¶24} Houston’s first assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred in

granting Johnson-White’s summary-judgment motion. He contends that he raised

facts that could support a finding that Johnson-White had abandoned the easement.

       {¶25} We review summary-judgment decisions de novo, without deference to

the trial court’s decision. Holloman v. Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp., 1st Dist.

                                           7
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Hamilton No. C-180692, 2019-Ohio-5077, ¶ 8. Under Civ.R. 56(C), summary

judgment is proper when the moving party establishes that “(1) no genuine issue of

any material fact remains, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one

conclusion, and construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving

party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary

judgment is made.” Id. at ¶ 7, quoting State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor City Council,

105 Ohio St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-2163, 826 N.E.2d 832, ¶ 9.

       {¶26} Summary judgment “[s]hall not be rendered unless it appears from the

evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable

minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party

against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.” Id. A party may support

its motion or opposition to the motion with evidence via the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and

written stipulations of fact. Id. No other evidence or stipulation may be considered

except as stated in Civ.R. 56(C). Id.

       {¶27} When the moving party meets its initial burden to show that it is entitled

to summary judgment, the nonmoving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations

or denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise

provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue

for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be

entered against the party.” Civ.R. 56(E).

                                            8
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                  Johnson-White met her initial Civ.R. 56(E) burden.

       {¶28} An easement is defined as “a right, without profit, created by grant or

prescription, which the owner of one estate, called the dominant estate, may exercise

in or over the estate of another, called the servient estate, for the benefit of the former.”

Harvest Land Co-op, Inc. v. Sandlin, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2007-07-161, 2008-

Ohio-5417, ¶ 9, quoting Proffitt v. Plymesser, 12th Dist. Brown. No. CA2000-04-008,

2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2801, 3 (June 25, 2001); see Trattar v. Rausch, 154 Ohio St.

286, 95 N.E.2d 685 (1950), paragraph one of the syllabus. Servient property owners

may use their property in any way that is not inconsistent with the use allocated to the

dominant property owner. Harvest Land Co-op, Inc. at ¶ 9.

       {¶29} An easement may be acquired by express grant, implication, or

prescription. Id. at ¶ 10. An easement’s duration may be set by the terms of the

instrument that created it. Id. It may be permanent or terminated by a party’s acts,

operation of law, a change in the use or character of the property, or an end to the

necessity for which the easement was created. Id.

       {¶30} The nonuse of an easement alone is not sufficient to establish

abandonment; rather, a party must expressly intend to abandon the easement or act

in a manner that unequivocally shows an intent to abandon. See Hemmelgarn v.

Huelskamp & Sons, Inc., 2019-Ohio-5298, 138 N.E.3d 1199, ¶ 49 (3d Dist.), citing

Wyatt v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 87 Ohio App.3d 1, 5, 621 N.E.2d 822 (11th Dist.1993)

(“At the outset we note that the mere non-use of an easement, for a period however

long, will not amount to abandonment.”); Hemmelgram at ¶ 49, quoting Bosky

Group, LLC v. Columbus Ohio River R.R. Co., 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2017-0027,

2017-Ohio-8292, ¶ 25 (The “intent to abandon must be present and shown by

                                             9
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

‘unequivocal and decisive acts’ which are inconsistent with continued use and

enjoyment.”).

       {¶31} Johnson-White provided evidence to show that the easement had

existed for more than 60 years. Along with other evidence, she provided official

records from the Hamilton County recorder’s office showing that the easement existed

and had been transferred with the subsequent title transfers. The easement was noted

in Houston’s title policy and in the chains of title for both properties.

       {¶32} Even if Johnson-White did not consistently use the easement, there was

nothing to suggest that her actions were inconsistent with her intent to continue using

the easement. Johnson-White met her initial Civ.R. 56 burden to show that she was

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

       {¶33} And Houston failed to provide any evidence to support his opposition

to the summary-judgment motion. The affidavit that Houston did provide—days after

Johnson-White’s reply brief—contained no evidence involving the easement itself. It

only discussed the parties’ discovery status and disagreements. Houston did not cite

to any “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions,

affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact.” See Civ.R. 56(C).

Under Civ.R. 56(E), Houston’s failure to respond, “by affidavit or as otherwise

provided in this rule, [setting] forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue

for trial” left the trial court with one course of action—“[i]f the party does not so

respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party.”

       {¶34} We overrule Houston’s first assignment of error.

                                            10
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                                     Conclusion

       {¶35} The trial court properly granted summary judgment in Johnson-White’s

favor. She provided evidence of the easement and its use. Houston, however, failed to

refute her evidence with any evidence at all demonstrating genuine issues of material

fact. And the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Houston’s Civ.R. 56(F)

request. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.

Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                           11