Cases & Developments

Opinion affirming dismissal. In 1993, the Perry County Board of Commissioners conveyed 25 acres of land to Hocking Technical College, executing a warranty deed with a reverter clause requiring the College to construct a facility for governmental offices and educational activities within four years. The College constructed a facility utilizing 25% of the land. In 2022, the College released a request for proposals (RFP) for 15 acres of the land, contemplating potential sale, lease, or other partnership, and the Board sued for quiet title and reversion of the unused portion of the land. In affirming dismissal of the Board’s complaint, the Court of Appeals of Ohio held that language of the deed was clear and unambiguous, that the College had satisfied the condition in the reverter when it built on the land, and that there was no additional condition that the College use all of the land. The Board also asserted that because it had conveyed the land to the College without statutorily required advertisements for the transfer of land in fee simple, the College is prohibited from transferring the land for private gain. The court held this question premature because the College did not sell the land in the RFP.   

Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the College.  In 1974, Newton College closed and conveyed its land at the same closing to Boston College (BC) and the Newton Country Day School (NCDS), with NCDS receiving the northern portion and BC receiving the southern portion and with the boundary described as “running along the northerly side of Colby Street.”  After NCDS opened a new athletic center in 2016 and directed vehicular traffic over Colby Street, relations became acrimonious and both schools filed lawsuits.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of BC, and the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed.  It held, first, that because the deeds were conveyed in a simultaneous transaction the fact that NCDS’s deed was recorded first was of no significance.  It then held that because the (1) grantor retained no land in the transaction no easement by estoppel was created, and (2) grantor’s intent was clear in the deed there was likewise no easement by implication.  Finally, the court also affirmed judgement in favor of BC on its claims of trespass and nuisance, which the trial court entered after a trial found for BC on NCDC’s claim of a prescriptive easement.