A longstanding disagreement over the removal and sale of timber from several parcels of farmland has resulted in a partial reversal and remand by the Ohio Fourth Appellate District Court in Ross County. The case centers on claims brought by the trustee for two family trusts against a former farm operator, with allegations that significant quantities of trees were removed without authorization, leading to damages and legal action.
The appeal was filed by William R. Branscomb on March 20, 2026, challenging a judgment issued by the Ross County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Wendy D. Brown, acting as trustee for both the Wendy D. Brown Revocable Living Trust and the John A. Brown Revocable Living Trust, both dated March 21, 2000.
According to court documents, the dispute began in June 2020 when Wendy D. Brown, as trustee for three trusts—including her own trust, her late husband’s trust, and a defined benefit pension plan—and Brown’s Paint Valley Farms LLC filed suit against Mr. Branscomb. The complaint alleged conversion and violations under Ohio Revised Code Section 901.51 regarding unauthorized removal of trees from certain real property.
Mr. Branscomb responded with counterclaims and a third-party complaint asserting numerous causes including promissory estoppel, quiet title, breach of contract related to crop farming and cattle services, unjust enrichment for various services performed on the property, tortious interference with business relationships, civil conspiracy, defamation, malicious prosecution, replevin, trespass to chattels, conversion, recovery under specific statutes (R.C. 2307.60 and 2307.61), accounting demands, among others.
Testimony at trial established that multiple parcels had been transferred between various entities related to the Browns since 1989. Ownership disputes arose after John A. Brown’s death in October 2016 concerning who rightfully owned these parcels.
Mrs. Brown testified about longstanding agreements with Mr. Branscomb dating back to at least 1994 regarding crop farming leases—described as general 50/50 arrangements where land use and proceeds were shared—and additional agreements relating to cattle care and maintenance services on the farm.
Evidence presented included receipts for timber sales provided by Mr. Branscomb between 2016 and 2019 totaling $15,944.75 for approximately 32,941 board feet of timber sold; Mrs. Brown stated she did not authorize these removals but was initially unconcerned due to their low value as represented at that time.
Suspicion arose when Mrs. Brown observed logging equipment on the property after her husband’s death; trail camera photographs provided by tenant Ray Salyers documented trucks removing loads of timber during periods when Mrs. Brown was away or after Mr. Brown had become incapacitated or passed away.
David Murray—a forester hired by Mrs. Brown—testified that he found evidence indicating at least 134 trees had been cut between 2016-2019 from three woodland sites not located near pastures or fence lines; he estimated total stumpage value at $44,453 using industry-standard methods but later admitted calculation errors likely inflated this figure by about thirty percent.
At trial’s conclusion in February 2024, several claims were dismissed or settled: some plaintiffs dropped their claims against Mr. Branscomb; certain counterclaims were resolved through settlement or voluntary dismissal; others proceeded to verdict.
The trial court ultimately awarded compensatory damages of $32,125.43 to “Brown” (the collective term used for Mrs. Brown as trustee), punitive damages amounting to $64,250.86 (with an election required between punitive or treble damages under R.C. 901.51), plus attorney fees set at $26,168.75 per stipulation.
On appeal before Judge Hess and others on the panel (no other judge names explicitly stated), Mr. Branscomb challenged dismissals of his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims as well as findings supporting conversion liability under both common law and statute.
The appellate court reviewed whether there was sufficient evidence supporting each element required for breach of contract (existence of agreement; performance; breach; resulting damages) and unjust enrichment (benefit conferred; knowledge thereof; retention under unjust circumstances). It found no manifest miscarriage in most factual determinations made by the trial court regarding oral versus written lease terms or adequacy of compensation received for bushhogging services or cattle care.
However, it did find error concerning denial of recovery for certain improvement expenses—specifically a $2,400 track hoe rental used to straighten a creek and gravel purchases totaling $3,818.40—which were supported by testimony distinct from hearsay-based custom-hire rates otherwise rejected as insufficient proof.
The appellate decision affirms most aspects of the lower court’s ruling but reverses only as it relates to those specific improvement expenses claimed under unjust enrichment theory; it remands those issues back to trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Attorneys listed are Mark D Tolles II (Benson & Sesser LLC) representing appellant William R Branscomb and Thomas M Spetnagel (Spetnagel Law Office) representing appellees including Wendy D Brown as trustee; case number is Ross App No 24CA17.
Source: 2026Ohio997_Brown_v_Branscomb_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
