Keeping the grass short is not enough: The Supreme Court refines adverse possession in NC Enterprises

By Terry Posey on May 5, 2026

Adverse possession is a doctrine that every lawyer encounters early in their first-year law school property class—the classic “squatter’s rights” analysis involving “open, notorious, exclusive and hostile” possession. Despite its ancient roots, it remains “still new law” as the Ohio Supreme Court continues to issue significant clarifications on the high bar required to strip a record title holder of their property.

In its recent decision in NC Enterprises, LLC v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 2026-Ohio-1429, the court addressed a common neighborly dispute: does the 21-year clock start when you begin maintaining a piece of land or only when you physically exclude others from it?

The case: Mowing vs. fencing

The dispute centered on 1.5 acres of land owned by a railway company but located adjacent to NC Enterprises’ property. The timeline was the deciding factor:

1998: NC Enterprises began mowing, weeding and landscaping the parcel.
September 2000: NC Enterprises installed a chain-link fence around the area.
July 2020: The Railway attempted to sell the land, prompting NC Enterprises to assert ownership via adverse possession.

The landowner argued that the 21-year statutory period for adverse possession began in 1998 with the start of maintenance activities. Under this theory, they would have hit the 21-year mark in 2019. However, if the clock only started with the installation of the fence in 2000, the claim failed, as only roughly 20 years had elapsed by the time the owner asserted its rights.

The holding: “Mere maintenance” is not possession

Reversing the lower courts, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the 21-year period did not begin with the mowing and landscaping in 1998. The court emphasized that adverse possession is a disfavored doctrine in Ohio, requiring clear and convincing evidence of “stringent” elements.

The court clarified that “mere maintenance”—such as mowing grass, cutting weeds or minor landscaping—is generally insufficient to establish the hostile and exclusive elements of adverse possession. Such acts are often seen as neighborly accommodations or simple upkeep rather than a clear signal to the world (and the title holder) that the occupant is claiming ownership.

Points for practitioners

For attorneys advising clients on boundary disputes, NC Enterprises provides several critical takeaways:

Concept	Practitioner Application
The “Fence” Rule	In many cases, the 21-year clock only begins when a notorious act occurs, such as the installation of a fence or a permanent structure.
Mowing is Not Ownership	Be aware that mowing that area between your neighbor’s fence and yours is almost never enough to demonstrate ownership, even if it continues for 21 years or more.
Burden of Proof	The clear and convincing standard remains a significant hurdle. Remind clients that any ambiguity in the “hostility” of their use will likely be resolved in favor of the record title holder.
Neighborly Accommodation	Evidence of permission or acquiescence is the death knell for an adverse possession claim. If an owner allows a neighbor to mow a strip of land, that use is typically deemed permissive, not adverse.

Conclusion

The NC Enterprises decision reinforces the sanctity of record title in Ohio. For practitioners, it serves as a reminder to look for “acts of exclusion” rather than “acts of maintenance” when calculating the statutory period. Simply keeping a neighbor’s property tidy—no matter how long—does not translate into a legal right to own it.