The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled on a property dispute between neighbors Robert Long and Kathryn Long against Kelly Meier and Michael Meier. The court's decision, issued on September 18, 2026, addressed claims of adverse possession and damages related to a tree that was removed. The ruling impacts how property disputes are resolved, particularly regarding claims of land ownership and damages for property damage.
The case, Long v. Meier (docket number L-25-00299), arose from a disagreement over a strip of land between the Longs and the Meiers in Whitehouse, Ohio. The Longs claimed they had adversely possessed the disputed land and sought damages for the removal of a white spruce tree, which they believed was on their property. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Longs, leading to the appeal by the Meiers.
The dispute began when the Meiers installed a fence in 2022, which led to the Longs claiming that a four-foot strip of land was theirs based on their long-term use and maintenance. The Longs argued that they had maintained this area since moving in 1994, including mowing and landscaping. They also claimed the tree, which was removed by the Meiers, was planted on their property and served as a memorial for their pets.
The Longs filed a complaint against the Meiers, seeking to quiet title to the disputed land and damages for the tree removal. The case was heard in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, where the Longs presented evidence of their continuous use of the land. The Meiers countered that the Longs did not have a legal claim to the land and that the tree was on their property.
After reviewing the evidence, the trial court found in favor of the Longs on their claims of adverse possession and awarded damages for the tree removal. The court noted that the Longs had acted in a way consistent with true ownership, stating, "The Longs proved every element of their adverse possession claim by clear and convincing evidence." The court also found the Meiers liable for treble damages due to the reckless removal of the tree.
However, the Meiers appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in its judgment regarding the adverse possession claim and the damages awarded. They contended that the Longs' use of the land was not sufficient to establish adverse possession, as it primarily involved mowing and minor landscaping activities.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's decision. The court agreed with the Meiers that the Longs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of adverse possession. The court stated, "The Longs’ minor uses of the disputed property were just that: minor," and emphasized that activities like mowing and planting a tree do not constitute open and notorious use necessary for adverse possession.
As a result, the appellate court found that the trial court's decision to grant the Longs ownership of the disputed area was against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, the court upheld the damages awarded for the tree removal, affirming that the Meiers were liable for the reckless destruction of the Longs' property.
This ruling clarifies the standards for establishing adverse possession in Ohio and highlights the importance of clear and convincing evidence in property disputes. The decision may influence future cases involving similar claims, particularly in how neighbors manage and maintain property boundaries.
Going forward, the Meiers may have the option to appeal the ruling further, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in property ownership and the legal implications of neighborly disputes.