The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that mowing grass and trimming bushes is not sufficiently “open and notorious” to put a reasonable owner on notice that someone is taking possession of the land. NC Enters., LLC v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 2026 WL 1113731 (Ohio 2026). Some other courts agree. See Siedlik v. Nissen, 931 N.W.2d 439 (Neb. 2019); Warren v. Burnham, 573 P.3d 421 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
The holding is notable since some other courts have found to the contrary. See Union Cemetery Burial Soc’y of N. Smithfield v. Foisy, 292 A.3d 1205 (R.I. 2023); Jutting v. Hendrix, 606 N.W.2d 140, 142 (S.D. 2000). Cf. Ballard v. Harman, 737 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (planting 50 trees sufficient to obtain adverse possession).
The court justified its ruling by taking the possession that adverse possession is “disfavored” and the requirements to show its various elements “are stringent.” (¶ 11) To prove that the possession is visible or “open-and-notorious” the acts “must enable the title landowner to have reason to know of the adverse use.” (¶ 16) The acts must “give notice to the eal owner of the extent of the adverse claim.” (¶ 18)
The court determined that “landscape maintenance” does not satisfy the “open and notorious” requirement when no fence or structure was built.
There was a dissent that argued that “it is difficult to believe that a prudent owner of commercial property would not know that the property’s law, trees, and vegetation were being maintained by another entity.” (¶ 35)