Plaintiffs accuse neighbors of failing to pay for partition fence

In a recent legal dispute that has captured attention, a couple faced off against their neighbors over the construction of a privacy fence. The case was filed by Timothy A. Feasby and Rhonda D. Feasby in the Paulding County Court of Common Pleas against Joseph M. Garza and Karen S. Garza on December 22, 2022. The crux of the matter revolves around whether the Feasbys had the right to demand payment from the Garzas for a partition fence they built, under Ohio’s Chapter 971 laws regarding partition fences.

The conflict began when the Feasbys purchased property adjacent to the Garzas in 2012 and later decided to erect a privacy fence along their shared boundary. On December 30, 2021, they informed the Garzas of their intentions through legal counsel, asserting their right under Chapter 971 of Ohio law to enter onto the Garzas’ land for this purpose. However, the Garzas countered that these laws did not apply to residential properties like theirs, which were laid out into lots outside municipal corporations as per R.C. 971.03(B). After completing their fence, the Feasbys sought compensation from the Garzas amounting to $5,398.27.

The trial court sided with the Garzas on May 2, 2024, granting them summary judgment by ruling that Chapter 971 was indeed inapplicable due to R.C. 971.03(B). This decision was upheld upon appeal on January 13, 2025, when it was confirmed that both properties were considered “laid out into lots” as per existing legal definitions and precedents set by Glass v. Dryden.

Despite multiple appeals and attempts at reconsideration — including an unsuccessful bid with the Ohio Supreme Court — the Feasbys persisted with a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment on May 1, 2025. They argued procedural errors but failed to present new evidence or substantial grounds justifying such relief according to established criteria under Civ.R. 60(B). Consequently, their motion was denied on July 17, 2025.

The plaintiffs sought judicial acknowledgment of error in overruling their motion to set aside judgment based on Civil Rule 60(B), but this too was dismissed as unfounded given prior rulings and lack of new material evidence.

Representing Timothy A. Feasby and Rhonda D. Feasby is attorney John E. Hatcher while Timothy C. Holtsberry advocates for Joseph M. Garza and Karen S. Garza in this ongoing saga within Case No.11-25-09 presided over by Judges John R.Willamowski, Juergen A.Waldick,and William R.Zimmerman at Paulding County Common Pleas Court.