## Facts

- Two adjoining landowners on West River Road in Perrysburg, Ohio, arranged in 1981 to connect to a newly constructed public sewer main.
- A direct connection from the Bauer parcel to the main would have required excavating Bauer’s driveway at significant cost and inconvenience.
- The neighbors agreed Bauer’s sewer line would cross the Van Duyne parcel, meet Van Duyne’s connector line, and then both would connect to the public main.
- Construction included a 96-foot trench on Bauer’s side and a shared 207-foot trench on Van Duyne’s side; because of topography, the pipes were buried approximately five and one-half feet deep.
- Each owner paid her own tap and assessment fees; the record was unclear on how excavation or installation costs were shared.
- Ownership later changed: the Van Duyne parcel was acquired by the Susan S. Kienzle Trust, and the Bauer parcel was purchased by Michael P. and Joan Myers.
- The shared sewer configuration operated for decades; the plastic sewer lines had an expected useful life of about 50 years.
- In 2003, the Kienzle side notified the Myerses it was terminating what it characterized as a revocable license and demanded the Myerses make other arrangements; later correspondence threatened to cap the sewer line.

## Issues

1. Whether the Myerses held an easement (including an easement by estoppel) for their sewer line across the Kienzle parcel or merely a revocable license.
2. Whether any easement created by the prior owners’ conduct bound successors in title to both parcels.
3. Whether summary judgment quieting title in favor of the Kienzle Trust and authorizing termination of the sewer connection was proper.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
- It held the undisputed facts established an easement by estoppel for the sewer line benefiting the Myers parcel and burdening the Kienzle parcel.
- It rejected the trial court’s characterization of the arrangement as a revocable license subject to unilateral termination decades later.
- It concluded the easement by estoppel ran with the land and bound successors, including the Kienzle Trust.
- It reversed the portion of the judgment that extinguished the sewer right and permitted capping, while leaving intact any portions not inconsistent with recognizing the easement.

## Legal Principles

- A permissive use of land may begin as a license, but equity may bar revocation when the user reasonably and substantially relies on the permission by making improvements of a permanent or long-term character.
- An easement by estoppel arises where (1) permission is granted, (2) the permitted party materially changes position in reasonable reliance, and (3) revocation would work an inequitable hardship.
- Where the improvement is land-related and intended to function over many years (such as a buried sewer connection), the resulting easement by estoppel may bind successors to both the benefited and burdened parcels.
- On de novo review of summary judgment, if material facts are undisputed and support estoppel as a matter of law, a court may recognize an easement by estoppel without a trial.

## Conclusion

The court held that the long-standing, deeply buried sewer crossing—installed and maintained in reasonable reliance on a neighbor’s permission—created an easement by estoppel that could not be revoked by later owners, and it reversed the judgment to the extent it quieted title free of that sewer right and authorized capping.


Kienzle v. Myers, 853 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)