## Facts

- In 1936 and 1941, descendants of Harry H. Ink conveyed about 33.5 acres to the City of Canton as a gift for use “only” as a public park to be known as “Harry H. Ink Park.”
- Each deed provided that the city would hold the land only so long as it was used and maintained as the designated public park, and that if not so used the property would revert to the grantors and their heirs.
- The city paid no purchase price for the land but later constructed park structures and improvements.
- In 1961, the State of Ohio appropriated about 27 acres of the park for highway purposes, leaving a remainder of the original park land.
- The condemnation award included amounts for (i) the value of the land taken, (ii) the value of structures on the land attributable to the city’s improvements, and (iii) damages to the remaining land not taken.
- The award was paid to the City of Canton as record owner, and the grantors’ heirs claimed entitlement to some portion of the proceeds based on the deed’s reverter language.
- The heirs filed a declaratory judgment action to determine rights in both the remaining land and the condemnation proceeds.
- The trial court awarded the entire condemnation proceeds to the city, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a state taking by eminent domain of land held by a municipality under a determinable fee for park purposes extinguishes the grantors’ possibility of reverter.
2. How condemnation proceeds should be allocated between a municipal donee restricted to park use and the grantors (and their heirs) holding a possibility of reverter.
3. Whether and how the deed restrictions and reverter rights attach to the remaining land and any remaining condemnation funds after the taking.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and rejected the view that condemnation automatically destroys the grantors’ reversionary interest.
- The court held that the portion of the land-value award exceeding the land’s value for use only as a public park must be paid to the grantors and their heirs.
- The court awarded the city the portion of the condemnation proceeds representing the value of structures built by the city, free of the deed restriction.
- The court held that, so long as the city proposes to, reasonably can, and does use the remaining land and any remaining funds for the park purposes specified in the deeds, neither the remaining land nor those remaining amounts revert; however, the grantors and heirs retain reverter rights as to both.
- The court overruled prior Ohio authority to the extent it was inconsistent with recognizing reverter rights in the condemnation context.

## Legal Principles

- An eminent domain proceeding resulting in payment of compensation does not, by itself, extinguish a grantor’s possibility of reverter arising from a determinable fee.
- When land is gifted to a municipality for a single specified use, with an express reverter upon cessation of that use, condemnation for an inconsistent public use may shift the grantor’s reverter interest from the land to the proceeds.
- Allocation of condemnation proceeds may require separating (i) the value of the land as restricted to the specified use from (ii) additional value attributable to uses outside the restriction; the latter belongs to the grantor or heirs when the municipality paid nothing for an unrestricted fee.
- Compensation for improvements funded and constructed by the municipal grantee is payable to the municipality because it represents the municipality’s independent property interest.
- Remaining land and remaining funds tied to continued compliance with the specified use stay subject to the original condition; reverter rights persist if the specified use is later abandoned.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that condemnation of park-restricted land held in a determinable fee does not eliminate the grantors’ possibility of reverter; instead, the grantors’ heirs are entitled to the excess of the land’s condemnation value over its restricted park-use value, while the city retains compensation for its structures and may retain remaining land and funds only so long as it continues to use them for the designated park purpose.


Ink v. City of Canton, 4 Ohio St. 2d 51, 212 N.E.2d 574 (Ohio 1965)