[Cite as Long v. Meier, 2026-Ohio-3668.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
Robert Long, et al. Court of Appeals No. {48}L-25-00299
Appellees Trial Court No. CI0202302266
v.
Kelly Meier, et al. DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellants Decided: September 18, 2026
*****
Peter A. Dewhirst and Lacey L. Riley, for appellees.
R. Ethan Davis, for appellants.
*****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Appellants, Kelly Meier and Michael Meier, appeal the November 17, 2025
decision of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granting judgment in favor of
appellees, Robert Long and Kathryn Long, on the Longs’ adverse possession and treedamage claims. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
I. Background and Facts
{¶ 2} The Meiers and the Longs are neighbors who own adjacent parcels of
property on Neapolis Waterville Road in Whitehouse, Ohio. Their shared lot line runs
north to south from Neapolis Waterville Road in the south to some fields that abut the
properties in the north and is approximately 340 feet long. The Meiers’ property is to the
west of the line and the Longs’ property is to the east of the line. Along the property line
are several features that are pertinent to our analysis. Most notable of the features is a
fence that the Meiers installed in 2022, which runs parallel to the surveyed property line.
Part of the fence is split rail and part is white vinyl. To the west of the fence, in the
Meiers’ front yard, is a flowerbed outlined with landscaping timbers. North of that, near
the middle of the yards, is a wooden post (the “satellite post”) near a large tree.
Somewhere to the north of the flowerbed are two sections of white lattice.1 Until the
Meiers installed the fence in 2022, a wooden post (the “northern post”) stood in the
northwest corner of the Longs’ yard and the northeast corner of the Meiers’ yard.
Directly south of the northern post was a white spruce tree that stood on the property until
the Meiers installed the fence in 2022. The Longs maintain a large garden in the
northwest corner of their yard.
1
It is unclear from the testimony where the lattices are in relation to the satellite post and large tree.
2.
{¶ 3} This case arose from a dispute between the Meiers and the Longs regarding
the ownership of a strip of land on the eastern edge of the Meiers’ property that is
approximately four feet wide and runs the length of their parcel. The disputed land is
from the surveyed property line (which is five inches to the east of the fence line) west to
a line marked by the landscaping timbers, the satellite post, and the northern post.
{¶ 4} The Longs filed a complaint alleging that they had adversely possessed the
disputed land, seeking to quiet title to the disputed land, seeking damages under R.C.
901.51 for the Meiers’ removal of the white spruce tree that the Longs believed was on
their property, and seeking damages under R.C. 971.08 for injuries the Meiers caused by
installing a fence on the Longs’ property.2
{¶ 5} The case was tried to the court. The Longs presented the testimony of
Gloria Yarad, and each testified in their own behalf. As relevant to the claims on appeal,
the Meiers presented the testimony of Waynette Howery and Kelly Haynes and the
deposition testimony of Larry Howery, and each testified in their own behalf.
{¶ 6} Robert Long testified that he and his wife, Kathryn, moved into their home
in October 1994. They did not obtain a survey when they purchased the property. A plat
survey from 1981 showed that the property line was 35.7 feet from the edge of the
Meiers’ house and 10.4 feet from the edge of the Longs’ house. Robert did not see the
plat survey before he and Kathryn bought the house. In 2022, shortly after the Meiers
2
The Longs filed several other claims against the Meiers, and the Meiers filed several counterclaims against the Longs, which are not at issue in this appeal.
3.
had their property surveyed, the Longs obtained a survey of their property. The survey
includes some property features, including a split-rail fence, which is shown on the
Longs’ side of the property line, and a garden in the back, northwest corner of the Longs’
property, which is 1.1 feet east of the property line. The Longs maintained the garden;
neither the Meiers nor their predecessors maintained the garden. The Longs would mow
to the west of the garden with a riding lawn mower. The mower had a 42-inch deck, and
they would mow two strips to the west of the garden with the mower.
{¶ 7} Robert first learned of the purported property line in late spring 1995 from
their neighbor, Larry Howery, who lived in the Meiers’ home from before the Longs
bought their home until 2005. Larry told Robert that the landscape timbers he was
installing at the front of his property, near the southeastern corner, marked the property
line. Robert also understood that a round wooden post about five inches in diameter and
approximately four feet tall that stood at the northwest corner of his parcel (i.e., the
northern post) marked the corner of his property. The northern post was in place from
1994 until 2022. Robert planted a white spruce sapling directly south of the northern post
to place the tree on the property line because he believed that the post reflected the true
corner. He had not seen iron pins at the corner before the Meiers’ 2022 survey. He relied
on the northern post and Larry’s statements for the location of the property line. There
was a second wooden post, about 20 to 25 feet north of the landscaping timbers, that
Larry installed for a satellite dish (i.e., the satellite post) that Robert thought was on the
property line because “knowing Larry, he pretty much would put it on the property line.”
4.
The satellite post was three to four feet to the west of the split-rail fence. There was a
large tree to the east of the satellite post.
{¶ 8} Regarding the three- to four-foot strip of land between the satellite post and
the split-rail fence, Robert claimed that he and Kathryn maintained the area from 1994 to
2020 because “[n]o one else would maintain it so we started maintaining, weeding,
cutting back Poison Ivy [sic], [and] trimming shrubs . . . .” He claimed that “no one
contested” their maintenance of the area.
{¶ 9} To the east of the split-rail fence and west of the Longs’ house is an area of
the yard that the Longs used “temporarily” to unload supplies for their house or materials
for remodeling through a side door. Kathryn used the area for parking more than Robert
did. Since the split-rail fence was installed in 2022 or 2023, Kathryn tried to use the area
for parking. She “barely squeezed it in, but once you’re in there, you can’t even open
your doors to get out.” The fence is approximately 10 feet from the side of the Longs’
house. The Howerys did not use the area to the west of the Longs’ house while they
lived next door. However, the next owners, the Yarads, used the area but did not
maintain it.
{¶ 10} Regarding the white spruce tree, Robert said that he planted it directly
south of the northern post in the back corner of his lot in 1994, and the tree grew there
uninterrupted until 2022. He planted the spruce directly south of the post with the
intention of putting it directly on the lot line. It grew to 15 or 16 feet tall. It was
removed by someone around Halloween of 2022. He assumed that the Meiers removed
5.
it, but he did not see the tree being removed because it was done at night. The Meiers did
not ask the Longs’ permission to tear down the spruce. According to Robert, his family
had buried pets near the spruce, and it was a “memorial tree.” Robert told Michael about
the spruce being a memorial tree and said that it was on the property line. This
conversation happened within the first year or two after the Meiers moved in. A photo
Robert took after the tree was removed showed that the hole left by the tree was inside
the survey stakes put out by the Meiers’ surveyor.
{¶ 11} After the tree was removed, Robert got a quote from a landscaping
company to replace it. If the company were able to find a white spruce that was 14 to 15
feet tall, it would cost $3,841.29 for the tree and its installation.
{¶ 12} On cross-examination, Robert admitted that the 1981 survey set iron bars at
the corners of the parcels and that the Longs’ 2022 survey used the same iron bars.
{¶ 13} Robert thought that the Meiers’ fence was about 1.5 feet from the Longs’
garden in the back of the property.
{¶ 14} Robert acknowledged a photograph showing an iron pin with the wooden
post to its right and the spruce’s base in front of the post but maintained that he had been
told that the post indicated the line. He also claimed that he had never seen an iron pin
there before the Meiers’ 2022 survey. He admitted, however, that the post and tree in the
photograph were to the west of the pin.3
3
The trial court ultimately excluded this photograph, defendants’ Ex. 5, from evidence for lack of authentication, so it is not in the record for us to consider.
6.
{¶ 15} Robert acknowledged that Kathryn’s vehicle fit in the area between the
split-rail fence and the Longs’ house.
{¶ 16} Robert disagreed with Larry’s claim in his deposition that he mowed to the
east of the landscaping timbers.
{¶ 17} Kathryn Long testified that she and her husband, Robert, understood the
western boundary of their property by physical markers placed by the neighbors and
identified by the neighbors shortly after the Longs moved in. This included wooden
landscape timbers that Larry installed in 1995, which he told the Longs he had installed
on the property line. He also indicated that some flower beds to the west of the satellite
post in the middle of the yard were the Longs’, so Kathryn maintained those beds.
Finally, their understanding of the boundary line included the northern post at the rear of
the property. The post was at the northwest corner when Robert planted a white spruce
sapling in approximately 1996, which she saw him plant. After disputes with the Meiers
arose in 2022, she and Robert measured nearby corn at 14 feet tall and believed that the
spruce was about two feet above the corn, making the tree approximately 16 feet tall.
{¶ 18} Kathryn denied seeing any metal survey pins in the corners of her yard and
relied on the northern post and Larry’s statements to locate the boundary. She denied
telling Michael that a large tree in the middle of the yard marked the boundary line.
Instead, she told him that the white spruce at the back, which was north of the northern
post, was on the line. Kathryn claimed that the spruce was a memorial tree for their pets
7.
and that they had animals buried in the area of the tree. The Meiers later removed the
spruce despite knowing this information.
{¶ 19} Kathryn testified to continuous use and maintenance of the strip to the west
of her home, between her house and what is now the Meiers’ split-rail fence, from 1994
until the fence was installed in 2022. She regularly mowed the disputed area from the
post4 toward her house and trimmed overgrowth near the lattice between the properties,
while neither of their previous neighbors, the Howerys and the Yarads, maintained that
strip.
{¶ 20} Kathryn regularly drove and parked her vehicle along the west side of her
house to unload groceries, water bottles, and fuel pellet bags through the Longs’ side
door. She used this area at least weekly in the years before the Meiers installed their
fence. After having surgery in August 2020, Kathryn parked in the west side yard
continuously for 30 to 45 days. The Meiers lived next door at that time. The split-rail
fence reduced the space available for parking in her side yard, making it impossible to
open car doors when parked there. This prevents the Longs from using their side door for
loading and unloading.
{¶ 21} Gloria Yarad owned and lived in the Meiers’ house from 2005 until late
2019. She testified that she understood that a wooden post near some sections of white
lattice (i.e., the satellite post) marked the lot line, with her property to the west and the
4
It was unclear from Kathryn’s testimony which post she was referring to.
8.
Longs’ to the east. From 2005 to 2019, the Longs maintained and mowed the area east of
that post. They also mowed the strip between their garden and the Yarads’ garden at the
north end of the property. Additionally, the Longs mowed to the east of the landscaping
timbers at the south end of the property.
{¶ 22} Yarad recognized the spruce tree at the far north end of the property, near
the fields. She assumed that it was on the Longs’ property. Yarad’s husband mowed
their yard but did not mow at the north end by that tree.
{¶ 23} Yarad frequently observed Kathryn driving a vehicle along the west side of
the Longs’ house several times a week to unload groceries, water, and fuel pellet bags.
Robert also used that area to park and unload fuel pellets.
{¶ 24} On cross, Yarad acknowledged that Kathryn was a close friend who
mowed Yarad’s grass after her husband died. She reiterated that Kathryn usually mowed
areas near and between the gardens in the back of the property, although she
acknowledged that her husband sometimes mowed that area.
{¶ 25} Yarad’s husband talked to Larry about the property line a couple of times.
{¶ 26} Waynette Howery owned and lived at the Meiers’ property from June 1990
to June 2005. The Longs moved in next door around 1994. Waynette said that her
husband Larry, who was deceased by the time of trial, handled lawn care. Larry located a
metal rod near the road marking the front boundary and a wooden post near the Longs’
garden (i.e., the northern post) marking the rear boundary. When Larry mowed, he
“mowed right to the property line, so he mowed right up to [the Longs’] garden.” The
9.
landscaping timbers at the front of the lot were set inside of the property line, not on it.
Waynette believed that the line of survey stakes shown in one of the exhibits extended
slightly to the right of the front garden. She recognized two sections of white lattice that
were there when she lived in the Meiers’ house. She recalled Larry mowing and weed
whipping around the lattices but could not say how far the property line was from them.
Larry trimmed the “big tree” in the middle of the lot, so Waynette knew that the tree was
on their property. Waynette “assumed” that Larry weed whipped the area between the
big tree and the split-rail fence (which was not there when the Howerys lived in the
house).
{¶ 27} Waynette never saw the Longs drive vehicles through the space between
the homes. She never saw the Longs maintain the middle strip or her front garden area
and claimed that Larry always did that work. She did not have any conversations about
boundary lines with the people who bought the house from the Howerys or with the
Longs. According to Waynette, Larry mowed to the line identified by the front metal rod
and the northern post, with the rear marker being a post, not a pin.
{¶ 28} On cross, Waynette clarified that her knowledge of the lot line was based
on the northern post near the Longs’ garden and the front metal pin that Larry had found.
She did not recall a pin in the back and confirmed that the northern post marked the lot
line. She knew that the landscaping timbers were not on the lot line because Larry “never
put stuff on the lot line. He moved things in from the lot line.” She denied planting a
tree by the northern post and had no knowledge of whether Robert did so. She and Larry
10.
knew where the lot line was based on the mortgage survey they received when they
closed on the house, the metal pin Larry found in the front corner, and the northern post
in the back corner. She did not recall when Larry found the front pin.
{¶ 29} The parties stipulated to the court’s admission and use of Larry Howery’s
deposition. In the deposition, Larry testified that he lived in the Meiers’ house from 1990
to 2005. He knew the property’s boundaries from a survey he had done when he bought
the house. The boundary between the two houses lay closer to the Longs’ house, creating
more space on his side. Larry confirmed that a fence post at the back corner between the
two properties (i.e., the northern post) marked the rear boundary, which was in line with
his survey. He thought that the split-rail fence depicted in one of the exhibits was a good
representation of the location of the property line.
{¶ 30} Larry identified a small front garden area bounded by landscaping timbers
that was west of the Longs’ house, which existed when he bought the property and he and
his wife maintained. Large trees behind that garden were on his property and he
maintained the trees by performing general cleanup and trimming. The Longs never
helped with the trees. He did not see the Longs work on the front garden or maintain the
area on his side of the boundary while he lived there. He never saw the Longs park or
drive in the area between the houses and did not believe a car could fit there.
{¶ 31} Larry was in charge of the mowing while the Howerys lived at the Meiers’
property. He consistently mowed his lawn up to the edge of the Longs’ backyard garden
11.
because the garden came to the property line. No one objected when he was mowing,
and the Longs did not tell him not to mow their property
{¶ 32} On cross, Larry said that he and his wife, Waynette, installed a landscape
timber border around the small front garden early in their occupancy. He believed that he
installed the timbers before the Longs moved into their home. He denied any agreement
or discussions with the Longs establishing the lot line.
{¶ 33} Larry never saw vehicles in the space between the houses and thought a
large tree near the Longs’ side door, which he believed was on his land, would have
prevented vehicles from being in that area. He recalled having a satellite dish mounted
on a post on the east side of the property but could not confirm that it was the specific
post shown in a photograph. The lot line was closer to the Longs’ house than the post in
the picture. He did not have any written or oral agreements about the boundary line with
the Longs.
{¶ 34} He did not recall mowing the area east of the lattice sections and could not
say who raked leaves there. However, on redirect, he said that he could drive his riding
mower through the gap behind some shrubs in that area, which he believed that he
owned, and he claimed that he always mowed on the back side of the shrubs.
{¶ 35} Kelly Haynes is Larry and Waynette’s daughter. She lived at the Meiers’
property from 1990 to 2003. During that time, she performed both outdoor and indoor
chores. She recalled two sections of white lattice running north to south along what she
understood to be the property line. She believed the white lattice belonged to her parents.
12.
She helped maintain the area around the lattice but only on what she understood to be her
family’s property. When shown a current photograph, she identified a large tree that she
remembered from her time at the house. The tree and the area from the fence in the
picture toward her parents’ house were on her parents’ property. She assisted with
maintenance in that area, including the tree and everything toward her parents’ house.
{¶ 36} Michael Meier testified that he and his wife, Kelly, moved into their home
around 2019 or 2020. Their relationship with the Longs was initially “fine” but
deteriorated after the Longs complained that his sheds were too close to the property line.
{¶ 37} Michael said that the Longs tried to claim portions of his property and
alleged that his dog was on their property, which prompted him to install the fence.
When Kathryn mowed the back of the property, she would “always take two paths into
[the Meiers’] property.” When he mowed, Michael would “reclaim it back” by mowing
that area himself. He alleged that Kathryn was trying to “strong arm [them] into a belief
that was her property where she wanted it to be. And [Michael] knew it wasn’t.”
Kathryn initially asked his permission to mow a small section in the front yard, near the
garden bounded by the landscaping timbers, for a uniform appearance, which Michael
granted.
{¶ 38} He saw the Longs drive between the houses only once or twice and denied
that Kathryn parked in that area for 30 days. He did not say anything to them when they
parked there because they “didn’t do it enough for [him] to complain or say nothing.”
13.
{¶ 39} Michael maintained the middle strip and built a small fort for his daughter
between two pre-existing sections of lattice.
{¶ 40} The parties’ dispute about the boundary existed before the Meiers put up
their fence. Before the fence existed, Michael “kept recutting the grass” when Kathryn
would “cut her side and show ownership[.]” Michael obtained a survey before installing
the fence and set the fence five inches inside his property line on the contractor’s advice.
The fence follows the survey line, just five inches in toward his house. He measured the
distance between his house and the fence as 35.2 feet, which was similar to the distance
shown on the plat survey of 35.7 feet.
{¶ 41} Michael identified a northeast corner survey pin near a post and tree and
testified it was evident the tree was on his property because the post is roughly four
inches west of the pin.5 He removed that tree with a pickup after being told it had to go
to place the fence five inches inside the property line.
{¶ 42} On cross-examination, Michael said that his understanding of the eastern
lot line before the 2022 survey came from the location of the Longs’ back garden, the
Meiers’ front garden bounded by landscaping timbers, and Kathryn’s comment that the
large tree in the middle of the property between the houses was the Meiers’. He
acknowledged that he did not obtain a survey when they purchased the house and that he
relied on statements from Kathryn to initially establish the boundary line.
5
This testimony related to excluded Ex. 5.
14.
{¶ 43} Michael reiterated that he cut down the white spruce because the survey
showed that it was on his property and placing the fence five inches inside the property
line required its removal. He denied prior notice that the spruce belonged to the Longs;
they claimed after he had removed it that it was theirs.
{¶ 44} Kelly Meier testified that she heard the other witnesses’ testimony about
the boundary line and had no reason to doubt Michael’s testimony.
{¶ 45} Before the fence was installed, Michael consistently mowed and
maintained the grass along the entire disputed strip since they moved in. Since 2021, she
saw Kathryn driving through the strip a couple of times.
{¶ 46} Following the trial, the trial court issued its decision finding in favor of the
Longs on their claims for adverse possession, quiet title, injuring trees, and damages
under R.C. 971.08. The court found the Longs had resided in their home since October
1994. They did not commission a survey of the property when they bought it. At the
time the Longs moved in, the Howerys owned and were living in the Meiers’ house.
When the Howerys purchased their property, they did not commission a survey. The
Howerys sold the property to the Yarads in June 2005. Gloria Yarad lived there until late
2019. The Meiers bought the property in April 2020. They did not commission a survey
when they purchased the property.
{¶ 47} The Meiers commissioned a survey in August 2022. According to the
survey, the northern and southern boundaries of their parcel are 136 feet long, and the
western boundary (which abuts the Longs’ property) is 370 feet long. The Longs
15.
commissioned a survey in October 2022. According to their survey, the northern
boundary of their property is 149.95 feet long, the southern boundary is between 130 and
158.42 feet long, and the eastern boundary (which abuts the Meiers’ property) is 369.76
feet long.
{¶ 48} Although the properties were not surveyed until 2022, there were several
things on the properties that the Longs, the Howerys, and the Yarads all believed denoted
the boundary line. These included the northern post in the northeast corner of the Meiers’
yard and the northwest corner of the Longs’ yard, the satellite post in the middle of the
yard, and the landscaping timbers in the Meiers’ front yard. Michael removed the
northern post in October 2022. Gloria testified that she was told that the satellite post
marked the properties’ boundary. She said that the Longs maintained the property east of
the satellite post during the entire time she lived next door. The Longs also testified that
they maintained the property east of the satellite post. Robert testified that, when Larry
installed the landscaping timbers in the spring of 1995, he told Robert that the timbers
were directly on the eastern boundary of the Howerys’ property. Gloria said that the
Longs maintained the area east of the landscaping timbers. Waynette testified that she
did not think that Larry put the timbers directly on the property line. She also said that
Larry maintained the area east of the timbers, but she was not involved in the lawn care,
and Larry usually had it finished before she got home from work.
{¶ 49} Since October 1994, the Longs have maintained a garden in the northwest
corner of their property, 1.1 feet east of the boundary line. They testified that they have
16.
continually mowed the lawn surrounding the garden. Waynette thought that Larry
mowed the lawn up to the edge of the garden.
{¶ 50} In 2022, the Meiers installed a split-rail fence. The Longs testified that
they solely maintained the property between the fence and the satellite post for 26 years,
from 1994 to 2020. Gloria also testified that the Longs solely maintained this area while
she lived next door.
{¶ 51} The Longs testified that they solely used the area to the west of their house
as a driveway from 1994 until the fence was installed. They can no longer use the area as
a driveway since the fence was installed. Kathryn also testified that she would park in
that area during inclement weather and parked there for at least 30 days following a
surgery in August 2020. Gloria testified that she saw both Longs use the area as a
driveway, with Kathryn using the area several times a week while Gloria lived next door.
Waynette said that she did not see the Longs use the area but also said that she and Larry
seldom interacted with the Longs and used the driveway on the opposite side of their
property. The Meiers testified that they only saw the Longs use the area a couple of
times, but Michael said that he “‘didn’t really pay attention.’”
{¶ 52} More than 25 years ago, the Longs planted a white spruce tree on the
property line, a few inches south of the northern post in the northern corners of the yards.
The tree was approximately 15 to 16 feet tall and would cost $3,841.21 to replace.
Michael removed the tree in October 2022 without the Longs’ permission. The Longs
each testified that they told Michael before he removed the tree that the tree was planted
17.
on the property line as a memorial to their pets. Michael admitted to removing the tree.
He said that the tree was on his property, and the Longs never told him that it was theirs
until after he removed it.
{¶ 53} The trial court did not refer to Larry’s deposition testimony in its recitation
of the facts.
{¶ 54} The court found that the Longs proved every element of their adverse
possession claim by clear and convincing evidence. They had acted in a way consistent
with true ownership in order to acquire title to the disputed strip of land. Because the
Longs had acquired title to the strip of land, the court found in their favor on their quiet
title claim.
{¶ 55} Regarding the spruce tree, the court found that Michael, without privilege
to do so, recklessly cut down the tree, which stood on the property line of the Meiers’ and
the Longs’ properties. It found the Meiers liable for treble damages under R.C. 901.51,
for a damages award of $11,523.87 on the injuring-trees claim.
{¶ 56} Finally, regarding the Longs’ claim under R.C. 971.08, the court found that
the Meiers built a fence on the northern end of the property and did not share construction
of the fence with the Longs. In building the fence, the Meiers damaged the Longs’
property by removing the spruce tree. Thus, the court found the Meiers liable for
damages in the amount of $3,841.29. This brought the total damages award in favor of
the Longs to $15,365.16.
18.
{¶ 57} The Meiers now appeal, raising three assignments of error:
1. The Trial Court’s Judgment in awarding Appellees a four (4’) foot
strip of Appellants’ land by adverse possession is against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
2. The Trial Court’s Judgment in awarding Appellees treble damages
against Appellants for removal of a tree that was located entirely on
Appellants’ property is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion in awarding
Appellees quadruple damages.
II. Law and Analysis
A. The trial court erred as a matter of law by finding that the Longs adversely
possessed the Meiers’ property.
{¶ 58} In their first assignment of error, the Meiers argue that, even if all of the
Longs’ evidence is fully believed, they did not present evidence that is legally sufficient
to establish adverse possession. They contend that mowing, minor landscaping or
maintenance, and occasional trespass of a car door are insufficient as a matter of law to
prove adverse possession. They also claim that the Longs’ evidence is “legitimately
disputed,” so it does not rise to the level of the clear and convincing evidence required for
adverse possession.
{¶ 59} The Longs respond that the trial court’s finding that they adversely
possessed the disputed strip of land is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.
They contend that the evidence shows that they exclusively possessed the disputed land
from October 1994 to July 2022 and openly, notoriously, continuously, and adversely
used the land during that time period by maintaining, mowing, weeding, trimming, and
19.
driving and parking vehicles on it. They also contend that the trial court’s finding in their
favor shows that the court found their evidence more credible than the Meiers’ evidence.
{¶ 60} We review a judgment following a bench trial under a manifest weight of
the evidence standard. Terry v. Kellstone, Inc., 2013-Ohio-4419, ¶ 12 (6th Dist.). In
reviewing the judgment, we weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider
the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether the trial court clearly lost its way
in resolving evidentiary conflicts so as to create such a manifest miscarriage of justice
that the trial court’s judgment must be reversed. Eastley v. Volkman, 2012-Ohio-2179, ¶
20. As part of this review, we presume that the trial court’s findings of fact are correct
because the trial court “is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor,
gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of
the proffered testimony.” Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77,
80 (1984). We will not reverse a judgment supported by some competent, credible
evidence going to all the essential elements of the case as being against the manifest
weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978),
syllabus.
{¶ 61} “To acquire title by adverse possession, a party must prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, exclusive possession and open, notorious, continuous, and adverse
use for a period of twenty-one years.” Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St.3d 577 (1998),
syllabus. Failure to prove any of the elements is fatal to an adverse-possession claim. Id.
at 579, citing Pennsylvania RR. Co. v. Donovan, 111 Ohio St. 341, 349-350 (1924). Each
20.
adverse-possession claim must be decided upon its particular facts. Oeltjen v. Akron
Associated Invest. Co., 106 Ohio App. 128, 130 (9th Dist. 1958). The Ohio Supreme
court has emphasized that adverse possession is disfavored and that “the elements of
adverse possession are stringent.” Grace at 580.
{¶ 62} To establish adverse possession, the Longs need not have intended to take
the disputed parcel, but they must have intended to occupy and treat it as their own. NC
Ents., LLC v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 2026-Ohio-1429, ¶ 13. The use they made of the
land must be the same as the true owner would make of it. Fulton v. Rapp, 98 N.E.2d
430, 431 (2d Dist. 1950).
{¶ 63} For use to be open and notorious, the “use must be apparent, clearly
indicating that possession of the land, if not ownership, is being asserted. An open-andnotorious use must enable the title landowner to have reason to know of the adverse use,
though the landowner need not actually know.” NC Ents. at ¶ 16. In other words,
“‘[t]here must be something in the acts which accompany possession of property, in order
to give constructive notice, which can be seen and understood—something that will
induce inquiry—that will naturally raise the question as to who may have rights there.’”
Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Williams v. Sprigg, 6 Ohio St. 585, 595 (1856). “An open-andnotorious use must be obvious and apparent enough to hold a title owner accountable for
knowing that an adverse possessor is using the land.” Id. at ¶ 20. Additionally, the
“‘occupancy must be such as to give notice to the real owner of the extent of the adverse
21.
claim.’” Evanich v. Bridge, 2008-Ohio-3820, ¶ 8, quoting Humphries v. Huffman, 33
Ohio St. 395, 404 (1878).
{¶ 64} Landscape maintenance—such as mowing grass and trimming bushes—is
not sufficiently open and notorious to put the true owner on notice that someone is
adversely possessing their land. NC Ents. at ¶ 22, 26. Nor is planting a single tree, or
even several trees. See Cannone v. Levy, 1991 WL 274507, *3 (11th Dist. Dec. 20, 1991)
(“Ohio courts have recognized that mere maintenance of the land, such as mowing the
grass, cutting weeds, planting a few seedlings, and minor landscaping, is not sufficient to
trigger the statutory time period for adverse possession.”); Robinson v. Armstrong, 2004-Ohio-1463, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.) (“Mere maintenance of land, such as mowing grass, cutting
weeds, planting a few seedlings, and minor landscaping, is generally not sufficient to
constitute adverse possession.”). Instead, “[t]he appearance of the property must be
altered substantially before simple landscaping will support an adverse possession
claim.” Dreslinski v. Bugary, 1992 WL 190162, *1 (11th Dist. Mar. 20, 1992). This is
because, as the Supreme Court put it, minor landscaping activities are more akin to
hanging laundry—which is not open and notorious enough to put the true owner on
notice—than to “unfurling a flag on the land, and keeping it flying so that the owner may
see, if he will, that an enemy has invaded his dominions and planted his standard of
conquest.” (Cleaned up.) NC Ents. at ¶ 20, 22, 26.
{¶ 65} Minor uses of another’s property can combine to rise to the level of
supporting an adverse possession claim. For example, we have held that claimants who
22.
cleared paths, regularly traversed the lot to access a road, harvested firewood, and
traveled across the property on bikes and motorcycles established adverse possession.
Korenko v. Kelleys Island Park Dev. Co., 2010-Ohio-572, ¶ 27 (6th Dist.). Conversely,
planting flower bulbs at some unspecified point in time, occasionally removing debris,
parking a boat for a period of time, and playing fetch with dogs on the property was not
enough to establish an adverse-possession claim. Id. at ¶ 28. The Third District has
found that using the disputed property for recreation, planting and pruning trees,
cultivating asparagus, parking cars, running a go-kart, storing firewood, piling debris,
placing burn barrels, and maintaining the property as an owner would was sufficient to
put the owner on notice that the claimants were holding the land as their own. Kaufman
v. Geisken Enters., Ltd., 2003-Ohio-1027, ¶ 34 (3d Dist.). But the same court found that
removing an old fence and trees, planting one tree, erecting a grape arbor, mowing, and
slightly encroaching with a garden was insufficient to support an adverse-possession
claim. Crown Credit Co., Ltd. v. Bushman, 2007-Ohio-1230, ¶ 49 (3d Dist.). And the
Fourth District has found that mowing the grass, parking vehicles, and maintaining two
clothesline poles on disputed property is not enough to show adverse possession. Stover
v. Templeton, 1996 WL 112683, *2 (4th Dist. Mar. 11, 1996). We have likewise found
that mowing, occasionally parking cars, and riding horses on a disputed strip does not rise
to the level of adverse possession. Matheson v. Morog, 2001 WL 85149, *3 (6th Dist.
Feb. 2, 2001),
23.
{¶ 66} Here, even if the Longs’ minor uses of the disputed property are combined,
they do not rise to the level of open and notorious use. First, their use primarily consisted
of mowing and minor landscaping, including planting the white spruce, which is not
sufficiently open and notorious to put the true owner on notice that another is claiming
the land. NC Ents., 2026-Ohio-1429, at ¶ 22, 26. Second, the only other use the Longs
made of the land was temporarily, intermittently parking on a small part of the disputed
strip. This temporary, transient activity is not enough to put the true owner on notice that
another is claiming the land because it is not something “‘that will naturally raise the
question as to who may have rights there.’” Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Williams, 6 Ohio St. at
595. In short, the Longs’ minor uses of the disputed property were just that: minor. As
the Supreme Court said in NC Ents., at ¶ 22, these activities were more akin to hanging
out laundry than planting a flag of conquest, which is insufficient to take another’s
property by adverse possession.
{¶ 67} Because the Longs’ uses of the disputed property were not open and
notorious, they failed to present competent, credible evidence supporting every element
of an adverse possession claim by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, we find that
the trial court’s decision granting them ownership of the disputed area was against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we find that the Meiers’ first assignment
of error is well-taken.
24.
B. The trial court’s recklessness finding is supported by the weight of the evidence.
{¶ 68} In their second assignment of error, the Meiers argue that the trial court
abused its discretion by finding under R.C. 901.51 that they recklessly removed the white
spruce. They point out that they surveyed the property to ensure that they were putting
their fence in the right place, and the survey showed that the spruce was entirely on their
property. Thus, they had a good faith basis to believe that the tree belonged to them, and
the precautions they took before removing the tree show that they did not act with
heedless indifference to the consequences. The Longs respond that the trial court
properly awarded treble damages for Michael cutting down the white spruce because they
told the Meiers that they planted the tree on the boundary line and used it as a memorial
to their dead pets, and Michael cut down the tree without the Longs’ permission at night,
in the dark.
{¶ 69} Under R.C. 901.51, “[n]o person, without privilege to do so, shall
recklessly cut down, destroy, girdle, or otherwise injure a vine, bush, shrub, sapling, tree,
or crop standing or growing on the land of another or upon public land.” “Recklessly” in
this context is the same in the criminal context. Wooten v. Knisley, 79 Ohio St.3d 282,
289-290 (1997). A person’s conduct is “reckless” when, “with heedless indifference to
the consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk . . .” that their
conduct is likely to cause a certain result or be of a certain nature. R.C. 2901.22(C). A
person is reckless with regard to circumstances when, “with heedless indifference to the
25.
consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk . . .” that the
circumstances likely exist. Id.
{¶ 70} Here, the trial court determined that the spruce tree “stood on the property
line of both” the Meiers’ and the Longs’ properties. We cannot conclude that the trial
court clearly lost its way in making this conclusion. Although conflicting evidence
exists, this finding is supported by Robert’s and Kathryn’s testimony that they planted the
tree on the boundary line, as well as a photograph of the area after the tree was removed
(plaintiff’s Exhibit K). The trial court was in the best position to judge Robert’s and
Kathryn’s credibility, and we must defer to the court’s credibility findings in a manifestweight review. State v. Reillo, 2026-Ohio-2701, ¶ 32. And the admitted photograph,
which depicts the dirt outline left after the tree’s removal in relation to a survey stake,
does not clearly establish that the tree stood entirely on the Meiers’ property rather than
on the property line. The photograph is subject to interpretation, and the trial court’s
interpretation of the photograph as showing the tree on the property line is not patently
unreasonable. The record therefore does not enable us to conclude that the trial court’s
factual finding was manifestly unjust.
{¶ 71} Trees on the boundary line of two properties are jointly owned by the
property owners on either side of the boundary as tenants in common. Hay v. Norwalk
Lodge No. 730, B.P.O.E., 92 Ohio App. 14, 24 (6th Dist. 1951); Pinkerton v. Franklin
Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 1984 WL 13994 (10th Dist. July 17, 1984). Although we were
unable to find any cases addressing R.C. 901.51 in the context of jointly owned border
26.
trees, general rules about tenants in common should apply to this situation. “A tenancy in
common is a joint interest in property” in which the cotenants have “a unity or right of
possession.” Koster v. Boudreaux, 11 Ohio App.3d 1, 5 (6th Dist. 1982). Cotenants hold
distinct titles with unity of possession. Sullinger v. Reed, 2021-Ohio-2872, ¶ 27 (3d
Dist.). Each tenant is equally entitled to the use, benefit, and possession of the property.
Id. at ¶ 28. This means that “one cotenant cannot dispossess another cotenant of the
common property . . . .” Id. at ¶ 29. “‘[I]t is fundamental that a tenant in common cannot
convey or incumber [sic] the interest of his cotenant, nor by any act of his divest his
interest as cotenant in the entire tract, or defeat, defer or limit his rights as a tenant in
common . . . .’” Heiden v. Howes, 77 Ohio App. 525, 531 (1st Dist. 1945), quoting Lauer
v. Green, 99 Ohio St. 20, 25 (1918).
{¶ 72} With that in mind, we find that the trial court’s determination that Michael
removed the spruce tree recklessly and without privilege is supported by some
competent, credible evidence, so it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
First, the evidence supports a finding that the tree was at least partially “on the land of
another,” as required for liability to attach under R.C. 901.51. As we have discussed, the
evidence can reasonably be interpreted as showing that the tree was directly on the
boundary line of the two properties, meaning that it was at least half on the Longs’
property. Second, because the tree was co-owned by the parties, Michael did not have
the right to unilaterally destroy the Longs’ interest in the tree by removing the tree from
the property without the Longs’ consent. Heiden at 531. Third, Kathryn and Robert each
27.
testified that the spruce was a memorial tree, and Robert testified that he told Michael
about the memorial tree a year or two after he moved in. Although Michael testified that
the Longs did not tell him about the memorial aspect of the tree until after he removed it,
the trial court was in the best position to judge witness credibility and we cannot say that
it was unreasonable for the trial court to believe the Longs instead of Michael. Similarly,
we cannot say that the trial court lost its way by believing Robert’s testimony that
Michael removed the tree at night, without consulting the Longs, and with knowledge
that it was a memorial to the Longs’ pets. Finally, although the Meiers obtained a survey
before cutting down the tree, we cannot say that the admitted evidence clearly shows that
the trial court erred in its conclusion that the tree was on the boundary line rather than the
Meiers’ property. Accordingly, we must conclude that there is some competent, credible
evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Michael removed the spruce with
heedless indifference to the consequences, i.e., that he acted recklessly.
{¶ 73} Because the trial court’s finding that Michael recklessly removed the tree is
not against the manifest weight of the evidence, the Meiers’ second assignment of error is
not well-taken.
C. The trial court improperly awarded the Longs a double recovery.
{¶ 74} In their final assignment of error, the Meiers argue that the trial court
impermissibly awarded the Longs quadruple damages for the removal of the spruce tree.
They point out that the court awarded $11,523.87 as treble damages for the Longs’ R.C.
28.
901.51 claim and an additional $3,841.29 as damages for the Longs’ R.C. 971.08 claim,
which amounts to double recovery for the same tree.
{¶ 75} In Ohio, although plaintiffs are permitted to plead and proceed under
multiple theories of liability, they are only entitled to a single recovery of compensatory
damages for their injuries. Cunning v. Windsor House, Inc., 2023-Ohio-352, ¶ 50 (11th
Dist.); Brenner Marine, Inc. v. George Goudreau, Jr. Trust, 1995 WL 12118, *5 (6th
Dist. Jan. 13, 1995). Here, the Longs were compensated twice for the single injury of
Michael removing the white spruce tree. First, they received compensatory damages
under R.C. 901.51, which were statutorily trebled because Michael acted recklessly.
Then, they received compensatory damages under R.C. 971.08(A), which provides, “[i]f
an owner chooses to build a partition fence and the owner of adjoining property does not
share in the construction of the fence, . . . that owner or [their] contractor is liable for all
damages caused by the entry onto the adjoining property [to build or maintain the fence],
including damages to crops.” This is an impermissible double recovery.
{¶ 76} Because the trial court improperly awarded the Longs a double recovery,
we modify the damages award to reflect the proper damages amount of $11,523.87. The
Meiers’ third assignment of error is well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 77} Based on the foregoing, the November 17, 2025 decision of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The trial court’s
finding that the Longs adversely possessed a portion of the Meiers’ property is reversed
29.
and vacated. The trial court’s finding that Michael recklessly removed the white spruce
tree on the border of the Longs’ and the Meiers’ properties is affirmed, but the trial
court’s damages award is reversed and modified to $11,523.87. The parties are ordered
to divide the costs of this appeal equally under App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed, in part,
and reversed, in part.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Christine E. Mayle, J.
JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J.
JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, J.
CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
30.