The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling that requires Hasington, LLC to remove a shed that partially encroaches on the property of its neighbor, Susan Slentz. The decision, issued on July 13, 2026, affects property owners in Carroll County and sets a precedent regarding property disputes involving encroachments.
The case, Slentz v. Hasington, L.L.C. (Docket No. 25 CA 0988), began when Slentz and her co-plaintiffs filed a complaint against Hasington, LLC, which is owned by attorney Hwa Lumley. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to property lines and the legal implications of encroachments.
The dispute arose after the Village of Minerva vacated an alley that had previously separated the properties owned by Slentz and Hasington. Following the vacation of the alley, both parties received half of its width, and Slentz demanded the removal of the shed, which encroached on her newly acquired property. The conflict escalated, leading to legal action.
On November 19, 2025, the Carroll County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of Slentz and her co-plaintiffs, ordering Hasington to remove the shed within 30 days. Hasington appealed the decision, arguing both procedural and substantive issues, including a denial of a requested continuance due to Lumley's medical treatment.
Judge Cheryl L. Waite, along with Judges Carol Ann Robb and Katelyn Dickey, ruled that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Hasington's request for an indefinite continuance. The court noted that the trial court had already provided ample time for Hasington to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
The court ruled, "there is no question of fact in this matter on which Appellant can prevail, and Appellees are entitled by law to the relief sought."
The court further explained that Hasington could not claim a prescriptive easement for the shed because the land was owned by a political subdivision, the Village of Minerva, prior to its vacation. This ruling underscores the legal principle that property owned by a municipality cannot be subject to adverse possession or prescriptive easement claims.
The decision has significant implications for property owners in Ohio, particularly in disputes involving property boundaries and encroachments. The ruling clarifies that property owners must respect legal property lines and that municipalities hold certain protections against claims of adverse possession.
Looking ahead, Hasington could potentially seek further legal recourse, including an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. However, the court's ruling sets a strong precedent regarding property law and the enforcement of property rights in Ohio.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions by Hasington. The outcome of this case may influence how similar disputes are handled in the future, particularly in cases involving encroachments on property lines.