## Facts

- George Wood died and, by will, granted his widow, Catherine D. Wood, a life estate in his marital property and other real estate, with the remainder to his children, Patricia Woodrick and Sheridan Wood, to take at Catherine’s death.
- After George’s death, Sheridan conveyed his remainder interest in Lot 105 to Catherine, leaving Patricia with a partial remainder interest in Lot 105 and leaving Catherine with both a life estate and a larger remainder interest in that lot.
- A barn sat on the property and physically straddled two adjacent lots (Lots 105 and 106).
- The barn had been used years earlier to house horses, but it had not been used for that purpose for a long time.
- The barn was old and deteriorating, and portions of the wood were rotting.
- Catherine and Sheridan decided the barn should be torn down because it was in poor condition and no longer suitable for its original use.
- Patricia, as a holder of a future interest, filed suit seeking an injunction to prevent Catherine and Sheridan from razing the barn, claiming the demolition would constitute waste.
- The trial court refused to issue an injunction, but ordered that if the barn were demolished Catherine and Sheridan must pay Patricia $3,200 as compensation for the loss of the structure.
- Patricia appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not restraining waste by the life tenant.

## Issues

1. Whether a life tenant commits actionable waste by demolishing an old, deteriorated structure when the remainderman does not prove substantial damage or diminution in value to the future interest.
2. Whether the remainderman was entitled to an injunction to prevent demolition of the barn on a waste theory under these facts.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- It upheld the denial of injunctive relief because the planned demolition of the deteriorated barn did not constitute actionable waste absent proof of substantial injury to the reversionary interest.
- It left undisturbed the trial court’s order requiring payment of $3,200 to Patricia if the barn were demolished.

## Legal Principles

- Waste by a life tenant is not established merely by physical alteration of the property; Ohio law requires a showing of substantial damage to, or substantial diminution in value of, the reversionary interest.
- Destruction or removal of an existing structure is not actionable waste when the evidence fails to show that the remainderman’s future interest will be substantially impaired in value.
- Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy and is generally improper for alleged waste where the plaintiff does not show substantial injury to the future interest; monetary compensation may be an available remedy where appropriate.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the refusal to enjoin demolition of the deteriorated barn because Patricia did not show that razing it would substantially injure the value of her future interest as required for actionable waste under Ohio law, and the court allowed the trial court’s conditional $3,200 compensation order to stand.


Woodrick v. Wood, 1994 WL 236287 (1994)