Two decades of yard work couldn't overcome Ohio's adverse possession bar
The Supreme Court of Ohio has decided that mowing someone else's lawn for two decades does not make it yours.
In a 5-2 ruling handed down on April 24, 2026, the court reversed lower court decisions that had granted NC Enterprises, L.L.C. ownership of two parcels of land in Tallmadge, Ohio, belonging to Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The dispute, which originated from a 2021 action filed by NC Enterprises seeking ownership through adverse possession came down to a deceptively simple question: can years of routine lawn care amount to a legal claim on someone else's property?
NC Enterprises purchased land next to the railway-owned parcels in December 1997. Within months, it began hiring contractors to mow, weed, fertilize, trim, mulch, and handle seasonal cleanups on both its own property and the two neighboring parcels, which together totaled just under 1.5 acres. The company maintained throughout the case that it always believed those parcels were part of its property.
No structures or improvements went up on the parcels until September 2000, when NC Enterprises installed a fence along the road. A chain-link fence with barbed wire followed in 2003, and drainage pipes came in 2011. Norfolk Southern Railway, meanwhile, continued paying property taxes on the parcels and listed them for sale at various times between 2003 and 2020.
Under Ohio law, claiming ownership of another party's property through adverse possession requires clear and convincing evidence of exclusive, open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for 21 years. The court zeroed in on one element: whether NC Enterprises' activities were sufficiently "open and notorious" across that entire timeframe.
The court concluded they were not. Because Norfolk Southern Railway formally rejected the adverse possession claim in July 2020, the 21-year period needed to have started no later than July 1999. At that point, the only work NC Enterprises had done on the parcels was lawn care. The court held that mowing grass and trimming bushes, while visible, simply do not signal to a property owner that someone else is staking a claim on their land. The first act the court considered sufficient was the fence in September 2000 – about 14 months too late.
Justice Brunner dissented, arguing that a reasonable commercial property owner should notice when another entity is actively maintaining its land and that the issue deserved a full trial rather than a ruling as a matter of law.
The case has been sent back to the trial court, where a separate unjust enrichment claim by NC Enterprises remains unaddressed. The matter is not fully resolved.
For real estate professionals, the practical takeaway is clear. In Ohio, keeping a neighboring property tidy does not create a path to ownership. Title holders who pay their taxes and maintain their records hold strong legal ground, even when they are not actively monitoring every parcel. The ruling is also a reminder that thorough boundary and title due diligence remains essential in any transaction where land use histories are murky.
