Ohio Supreme Court Holds that Lawn Maintenance Alone Is Not Sufficient in Claiming Adverse Possession

Boundary disputes between neighboring properties (residential and commercial) are common. These include disputed driveways, fences, garages, and sheds. Often, one of the neighboring properties may seek to claim adverse possession along an assumed boundary or portion of the neighbor’s property.

On Friday, April 24, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court held that lawn maintenance on a neighbor’s parcel was insufficient to establish the “open and notorious” elements required to claim adverse possession of that portion of the neighbor’s property.

In NC Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 2026-Ohio-1429, NC Enterprises filed an action claiming to own two adjacent parcels of land under the doctrine of adverse possession. Norfolk Southern Railway Company was the titled owner of the two parcels in question.

The evidence showed that starting approximately four months after it purchased its property (in December 1997), NC Enterprises started performing “regular and significant” landscape maintenance on its property and two parcels owned by Norfolk Southern. The maintenance included mowing, weeding, fertilizing, trimming bushes, shrubs, and trees, edging, mulching, planting, and clean-ups. When Norfolk Southern posted “for sale” signs, NC Enterprises notified Norfolk Southern that NC Enterprises was claiming adverse possession. NC Enterprises then filed a civil action.

The trial court and court of appeals ruled in favor of NC Enterprises, finding it had proven the required elements of “adverse possession” – namely, it “ha[d] proven by clear and convincing evidence, exclusive possession and open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use of the parcels at issue for a period of at least 21 years.”

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower courts, finding that lawn maintenance activities alone did not establish the “open and notorious” requirements of adverse possession. The Court found that the only adverse use for at least 21 years was the landscape maintenance.

This decision by the Ohio Supreme Court makes clear that a party claiming adverse possession needs to prove open and notorious use sufficient to put the neighbor on notice that it must act to protect its ownership rights or it could lose them. Merely mowing or landscaping the disputed area is not sufficient for the titled owner to lose its legal right of ownership.

If you have any questions about this ruling, please contact Mark L. Rodio or any member of the Frantz Ward Litigation practice group.