The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a reversionary interest in a deed donating a park to the city was not extinguished by operation of the state marketable title act. Cleveland Botanical Garden v. Worthington Drewien, 2022 Ohio LEXIS 2153 (Ohio 2022).
When the park was donated to the city of Cleveland, it contained a possibility of reverter that would be activated if the city ever stopped using the property for public park purposes. The deed required the park to be “open at all times to the public” and to be used only for “park” purposes. The heir complained when the city’s lessee closed the park on Mondays, began charging admission to enter the park, and constructed and operated a parking garage on part of the property.
The court first determined that the terms of the conveyance had not been violated because the city (and its lessee) had the power to create a parking garage and to close the park or parts of it as needed to fulfill the obligation to “maintaining a beautiful and attractive Public park for the benefit of all the people.”
The second issue in the case was whether the state’s marketable title act destroyed the possibility of reverter in the heirs. The marketable title act destroys interests that exist before the root of title, but it does not destroy interests that exist in the root of title. The deed here is the root of title and the future interest in it is therefore still valid.