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.

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

Update: On March 25, 2020, the Bilinoviches and Rails-to-Trails settled their claims against each other. The claims of the Koprivecs and the Koontzes are still pending.

“If a licensee is on the property of the title holder performing acts that would ordinarily require the permission of the owner, the exclusivity of the adverse-possession claimant would

Update: On February 7, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in this case.  Read the analysis here.

On May 16, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of Don Koprivec et al. v. Rails-to-Trails of Wayne County, 2016-0704. This case was accepted on jurisdictional appeal

Update: On February 7, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in this case.  Read the analysis here.

Read the analysis of the oral argument here.

On May 16, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of Don Koprivec et al. v. Rails-to-Trails of Wayne County