A disagreement over the use of a shared driveway between neighboring property owners has resulted in an appellate court reversing a previous judgment and sending the case back for further review. The dispute centers on whether one party has the legal right to cross another’s land, raising questions about implied easements and property rights that could affect local landowners facing similar circumstances.
On February 2, 2023, Zola Properties, LLC, along with its tenants Oscar’s Party Center, LLC and Bella’s Creamery, LLC, filed a complaint in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas against Reed Salvage Corp., seeking relief for alleged encroachment and trespass. The appeal was decided by the Ninth Judicial District Court of Appeals on March 31, 2026.
According to court documents, both properties were originally part of a single parcel owned by Sheila Fishburn and her late husband. In 2017, this parcel was divided into two: the northern portion became what is now known as the Zola Property at 36709 Royalton Road in Grafton, Ohio; the southern portion became the Reed Property. Reed Salvage later purchased the southern parcel in April 2018 and operated a salvage yard on adjacent land to the east. In March 2020, Abdall Nimer acquired the northern parcel before transferring it to Zola Properties in January 2021.
The central issue involves use of a dirt road along the eastern edge of these properties. While there is no recorded or written easement granting Reed Salvage access through Zola’s land, it is undisputed that Reed Salvage and its customers have continuously used this route for ingress and egress to their own property. On December 26, 2022, Zola sent Reed Salvage a letter demanding they stop using this access point or face claims of trespass; however, Reed Salvage continued its use.
Zola Properties’ complaint sought compensatory damages for alleged encroachment and trespass related to both a sanitary sewer line and ongoing use of their property as an access route. They also requested attorney fees, interest payments, other equitable relief deemed appropriate by the court, and injunctive relief barring further unauthorized use.
Reed Salvage responded by arguing that it held an implied easement over Zola’s property based on prior continuous use—a claim rooted in Ohio law governing easements created through longstanding usage after severance from common ownership. Specifically, they asserted that their need for access was reasonably necessary due to lack of alternative routes.
The trial court initially sided with Reed Salvage on January 16, 2025 by granting partial summary judgment regarding the trespass claim related to driveway access. The judge determined that an implied easement existed by prior use and ruled it enforceable against Zola because they were not considered bona fide purchasers without notice of such encumbrance.
Zola appealed this decision on grounds that factual disputes remained—particularly concerning whether any implied easement truly existed and if so whether it could be enforced against them as subsequent purchasers lacking knowledge of such rights at time of purchase.
In reviewing these arguments de novo (without deference to previous findings), the appellate court emphasized that summary judgment should only be granted when no genuine issue remains regarding material facts—and all evidence must be viewed most favorably toward the non-moving party.
The appellate decision noted that while some elements supporting an implied easement (such as continuity and visibility) were largely uncontested due to historical testimony about longstanding use dating back decades before parcel division—the question of reasonable necessity remained unresolved given evidence suggesting alternative means might exist for accessing Reed Property via other parcels owned by Reed Salvage.
Additionally, crucial questions persisted regarding whether Zola qualified as a bona fide purchaser under Ohio law—which would shield them from unrecorded encumbrances like implied easements unless they had actual or constructive knowledge at purchase time. The appellate panel found that Reed Salvage did not meet its burden to show absence of factual dispute on this point in its original motion for summary judgment.
As stated in the opinion: “Because there remain genuine issues of material fact…the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment.” The appeals court reversed the lower court’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its findings—directing renewed examination under proper standards without weighing disputed evidence or making factual determinations reserved for trial.
Attorneys involved include Theodore J. Lesiak representing Zola Properties and Stephen M. Bosak Jr. representing Reed Salvage Corp. The case is identified as C.A. No. 25CA012234.
Source: 2026Ohio1139_Zola_Properties_LLC_v_Reed_Salvage_Corp_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
