A contentious property dispute has escalated into a legal battle over easement rights, drawing attention to the complexities of land use agreements. On November 17, 2025, Michael G. Stone and Tammy Stone filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate District, Hancock County against Melissa J. Humphress. The Stones allege that Humphress violated a court order by obstructing an easement that grants them access across her property.
The case revolves around a driveway easement established in 1954, which allows the Stones to traverse a portion of Humphress’s land to reach their garage. Over time, both parties sought declaratory relief to clarify their rights concerning this easement. In September 2023, the Hancock County Common Pleas Court ruled that while the Stones could travel and walk across the easement, they were not permitted to park on it or any part of Humphress’s yard. The court also found that any previous permissions for broader use were revoked by Humphress.
Despite these rulings, tensions persisted when Humphress allegedly placed large objects like planters and tables within the easement area—a move deemed retaliatory by the court and ordered removed. However, when she installed a gate across the easement as part of fencing her property for livestock safety, it sparked further controversy. The Stones argued this gate constituted an obstruction in violation of prior court orders prohibiting any blockage of access.
The trial court initially sided with Humphress regarding the gate’s installation, ruling it did not unreasonably interfere with the easement’s use since it was unlocked and part of enclosing her property to prevent animals from escaping. This decision was based on precedent from Gibbons v. Ebding (1904), allowing servient estate owners some leeway unless interference is unreasonable.
However, upon appeal, Judges Juergen A. Waldick, William R. Zimmerman, and John R. Willamowski reversed this decision. They emphasized that any obstruction—even if minor—contradicted explicit orders not to block access “in any way.” The appellate court noted that requiring someone to exit their vehicle to open a gate indeed hinders ease of access and constitutes an obstruction under previous judgments.
In light of these findings, the appellate court remanded the case back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion—highlighting ongoing disputes over property boundaries and usage rights can lead to complex legal interpretations.
Representing Michael and Tammy Stone is attorney Bradley S. Warren; however, Melissa J. Humphress failed to file a brief or appear at certain hearings through her counsel during this process—a factor considered by the appellate judges in their ruling reversal under App.R 18(C). The case ID is 5-25-06.
Source: 52506_Stone_v_Humphess_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
