[Cite as Evans v. Myers, 2026-Ohio-1255.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ADAMS COUNTY
GARY L. EVANS, ET. AL., : Case No. 25CA1212 : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : : NUNC PRO TUNC1 v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT : ENTRY BURTON MYERS, : : Defendant-Appellee. : RELEASED: 03/26/2026
________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES:
Alexander R. Chilelli, Carter, Montana, for appellants.
Christopher J. Mulvaney, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Wilkin, J.
{¶1} This is an appeal by plaintiffs-appellants, Gary L. Evans and Donna
R. Evans, Husband and Wife, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Evans”)
from a March 23, 2025 judgment entry that granted defendant-appellee, Burton
Myers’ (“Myers”) motion for a directed verdict. Evans appeals, raising five
assignments of error.
{¶2} After our review of the record, the applicable law, and the parties’
briefs, we find that the trial court did not err in granting Myers’ motion for a
directed verdict. Accordingly, we overrule Evans’ assignments of error and affirm
1 The Court notes that the appellee’s surname was misspelled as “Meyers” throughout the
decision. The correct spelling is “Myers.” All references to “Meyers” are hereby corrected to “Myers,” nunc pro tunc to the date of the original decision. Adams App. No. 25CA1212 2
the trial court’s judgment that dismissed Evans’ complaint and granted Myers’
counterclaim.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{¶3} Evans and Myers owned adjacent properties in Adams County, Ohio.
Evans maintained that he possessed an easement over Myers’ property that
provided Evans ingress and egress to his property from Dawn Lane Road.
{¶4} Myers disagreed and sent a letter demanding that Evans cease and
desist from travelling over Myers’ property.
{¶5} On July 19, 2024, Evans filed a complaint against Myers seeking a
judicial determination that Evans possessed an easement over a strip of Myers’
property that permitted Evans ingress and egress to Dawn Lane Road. The
complaint alleged in the alternative that Evans possessed an express easement,
easement by necessity, or prescriptive easement.
{¶6} On August 23, 2024, Myers filed an answer and a counterclaim for
trespass, damages, and to quiet title to his property.
{¶7} On September 27, 2024, Myers filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. Myers asserted that there was no genuine issue of material fact and
he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding Evans’ complaint to the
extent that it was seeking an easement by necessity and a prescriptive
easement.
{¶8} On November 15, 2024, Myers filed a motion requesting the court to
issue a decision pertaining to his motion for summary judgment. Adams App. No. 25CA1212 3
{¶9} On January 8, 2025, the court granted partial summary judgment to
Myers on Evans' claim for an easement by necessity.
{¶10} On February 20, 2025, the court began a bench trial. Evans
testified in support of his claim that he possessed an easement over Myers’
property that permitted him to access his property. During his direct testimony,
Evans repeatedly referenced documents identified as plaintiff’s exhibits A-F,
which included two purported plat maps and four purported deeds. He relied on
these documents to support his claim that he possessed an easement. Evans
was also cross-examined by Myers’ counsel.
{¶11} Myers testified asserting that Evans possessed no easement over
his property. Myers also relied on documents during his testimony identified as
defendant’s exhibits 1-3 that included two deeds and a cease-and-desist letter.
Myers was cross-examined by Evans’ counsel.
{¶12} After Myers’ testimony concluded, the court asked for the next
witness. Evans’ counsel stated that he had no further witnesses. The court then
asked if there were any motions to be heard. Evans’ counsel had none. Myers’
counsel, however, moved for a directed verdict. After a brief argument by Myers’
counsel in support of the motion, the court inquired whether some expert
testimony was going to be presented. Myers’ counsel stated that he believed
that Evans had rested, which was why he moved for a directed verdict.
{¶13} The court then asked if Evans wanted to be heard. Evans’ counsel
referenced plaintiff’s exhibits as proof of the easement. A protracted discussion
then ensued between Evans’ counsel and the court, during which counsel Adams App. No. 25CA1212 4
referenced several of Evans’ exhibits and argued against the directed verdict.
Eventually, Evans’ counsel stated: “That, that’s all I’ve got.”
{¶14} The court stated: “Okay. All all right. Do you wanna be heard in
furtherance of argument?” Evans’ counsel responded: “I’ll submit.” After
additional discussion between the parties and the court regarding the existence
of a possible easement, the court directed a verdict for Evans. On March 3,
2025, the court issued a judgment entry that dismissed Evans' complaint and
granted Myers’ counterclaim that quieted title to his property. It is this judgment
that Evans appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT UNDER CIV.R. 50(A)(4) BY FAILING TO CONSTRUE THE EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO APPELLANTS, AS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS A, C, E, AND F SUPPORTED THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXPRESS EASEMENT.
II. THE TRIAL COURT MISAPPLIED OHIO LAW ON EXPRESS EASEMENTS BY REQUIRING SPECIFIC METES AND BOUNDS OR SURVEYOR TESTIMONY, CONTRARY TO PRECEDENT ALLOWING EASEMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY RECORDED PLATS AND DEED REFERENCES.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO CONSIDER AN EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION BASED ON APPELLANTS’ CONTINUOUS AND APPARENT USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR TWELVE YEARS, AS EVIDENCED BY TESTIMONY AND PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT A.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANTS’ DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT BASED ON THE ABSENCE OF SURVEYOR TESTIMONY, DESPITE ADMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AND FAILING TO ALLOW FURTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTATION Adams App. No. 25CA1212 5
V. THE TRIAL COURT MISINTERPRETED THE DEED LANGUAGE IN PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS C, E, AND F, WHICH, WHEN READ WITH EXHIBIT A, CLEARLY ESTABLISH AN EXPRESS EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO APPELLANTS’ PROPERTY.
{¶15} Evans asserts five assignments of error in support of his argument
that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Myers. However,
we do not need to address these arguments to resolve his appeal. Because
Evans’ exhibits were never entered into evidence, and, therefore, are not part of
the record, they cannot be considered in determining Evans’ appeal. Without
these exhibits, we find that Evans failed to provide sufficient evidence to support
his claim of possessing an easement over Myers' property. Therefore, we
conclude that the trial court did not err in granting Myers’ motion for a directed
verdict.
A. Law
1. Standard of Review
{¶16} “When determining whether to grant a motion for directed verdict,
the trial court must submit an essential issue to the [factfinder] if there exists
sufficient credible evidence to permit reasonable minds to reach different
conclusions on that issue.” Ark Advanced Remediation, LLC v. Watson, 2024-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Evans v. Myers, 2026-Ohio-1255.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ADAMS COUNTY
GARY L. EVANS, ET. AL., : Case No. 25CA1212 : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : : NUNC PRO TUNC1 v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT : ENTRY BURTON MYERS, : : Defendant-Appellee. : RELEASED: 03/26/2026
________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES:
Alexander R. Chilelli, Carter, Montana, for appellants.
Christopher J. Mulvaney, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Wilkin, J.
{¶1} This is an appeal by plaintiffs-appellants, Gary L. Evans and Donna
R. Evans, Husband and Wife, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Evans”)
from a March 23, 2025 judgment entry that granted defendant-appellee, Burton
Myers’ (“Myers”) motion for a directed verdict. Evans appeals, raising five
assignments of error.
{¶2} After our review of the record, the applicable law, and the parties’
briefs, we find that the trial court did not err in granting Myers’ motion for a
directed verdict. Accordingly, we overrule Evans’ assignments of error and affirm
1 The Court notes that the appellee’s surname was misspelled as “Meyers” throughout the
decision. The correct spelling is “Myers.” All references to “Meyers” are hereby corrected to “Myers,” nunc pro tunc to the date of the original decision. Adams App. No. 25CA1212 2
the trial court’s judgment that dismissed Evans’ complaint and granted Myers’
counterclaim.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{¶3} Evans and Myers owned adjacent properties in Adams County, Ohio.
Evans maintained that he possessed an easement over Myers’ property that
provided Evans ingress and egress to his property from Dawn Lane Road.
{¶4} Myers disagreed and sent a letter demanding that Evans cease and
desist from travelling over Myers’ property.
{¶5} On July 19, 2024, Evans filed a complaint against Myers seeking a
judicial determination that Evans possessed an easement over a strip of Myers’
property that permitted Evans ingress and egress to Dawn Lane Road. The
complaint alleged in the alternative that Evans possessed an express easement,
easement by necessity, or prescriptive easement.
{¶6} On August 23, 2024, Myers filed an answer and a counterclaim for
trespass, damages, and to quiet title to his property.
{¶7} On September 27, 2024, Myers filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. Myers asserted that there was no genuine issue of material fact and
he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding Evans’ complaint to the
extent that it was seeking an easement by necessity and a prescriptive
easement.
{¶8} On November 15, 2024, Myers filed a motion requesting the court to
issue a decision pertaining to his motion for summary judgment. Adams App. No. 25CA1212 3
{¶9} On January 8, 2025, the court granted partial summary judgment to
Myers on Evans' claim for an easement by necessity.
{¶10} On February 20, 2025, the court began a bench trial. Evans
testified in support of his claim that he possessed an easement over Myers’
property that permitted him to access his property. During his direct testimony,
Evans repeatedly referenced documents identified as plaintiff’s exhibits A-F,
which included two purported plat maps and four purported deeds. He relied on
these documents to support his claim that he possessed an easement. Evans
was also cross-examined by Myers’ counsel.
{¶11} Myers testified asserting that Evans possessed no easement over
his property. Myers also relied on documents during his testimony identified as
defendant’s exhibits 1-3 that included two deeds and a cease-and-desist letter.
Myers was cross-examined by Evans’ counsel.
{¶12} After Myers’ testimony concluded, the court asked for the next
witness. Evans’ counsel stated that he had no further witnesses. The court then
asked if there were any motions to be heard. Evans’ counsel had none. Myers’
counsel, however, moved for a directed verdict. After a brief argument by Myers’
counsel in support of the motion, the court inquired whether some expert
testimony was going to be presented. Myers’ counsel stated that he believed
that Evans had rested, which was why he moved for a directed verdict.
{¶13} The court then asked if Evans wanted to be heard. Evans’ counsel
referenced plaintiff’s exhibits as proof of the easement. A protracted discussion
then ensued between Evans’ counsel and the court, during which counsel Adams App. No. 25CA1212 4
referenced several of Evans’ exhibits and argued against the directed verdict.
Eventually, Evans’ counsel stated: “That, that’s all I’ve got.”
{¶14} The court stated: “Okay. All all right. Do you wanna be heard in
furtherance of argument?” Evans’ counsel responded: “I’ll submit.” After
additional discussion between the parties and the court regarding the existence
of a possible easement, the court directed a verdict for Evans. On March 3,
2025, the court issued a judgment entry that dismissed Evans' complaint and
granted Myers’ counterclaim that quieted title to his property. It is this judgment
that Evans appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT UNDER CIV.R. 50(A)(4) BY FAILING TO CONSTRUE THE EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO APPELLANTS, AS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS A, C, E, AND F SUPPORTED THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXPRESS EASEMENT.
II. THE TRIAL COURT MISAPPLIED OHIO LAW ON EXPRESS EASEMENTS BY REQUIRING SPECIFIC METES AND BOUNDS OR SURVEYOR TESTIMONY, CONTRARY TO PRECEDENT ALLOWING EASEMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY RECORDED PLATS AND DEED REFERENCES.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO CONSIDER AN EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION BASED ON APPELLANTS’ CONTINUOUS AND APPARENT USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR TWELVE YEARS, AS EVIDENCED BY TESTIMONY AND PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT A.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANTS’ DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT BASED ON THE ABSENCE OF SURVEYOR TESTIMONY, DESPITE ADMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AND FAILING TO ALLOW FURTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTATION Adams App. No. 25CA1212 5
V. THE TRIAL COURT MISINTERPRETED THE DEED LANGUAGE IN PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS C, E, AND F, WHICH, WHEN READ WITH EXHIBIT A, CLEARLY ESTABLISH AN EXPRESS EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO APPELLANTS’ PROPERTY.
{¶15} Evans asserts five assignments of error in support of his argument
that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Myers. However,
we do not need to address these arguments to resolve his appeal. Because
Evans’ exhibits were never entered into evidence, and, therefore, are not part of
the record, they cannot be considered in determining Evans’ appeal. Without
these exhibits, we find that Evans failed to provide sufficient evidence to support
his claim of possessing an easement over Myers' property. Therefore, we
conclude that the trial court did not err in granting Myers’ motion for a directed
verdict.
A. Law
1. Standard of Review
{¶16} “When determining whether to grant a motion for directed verdict,
the trial court must submit an essential issue to the [factfinder] if there exists
sufficient credible evidence to permit reasonable minds to reach different
conclusions on that issue.” Ark Advanced Remediation, LLC v. Watson, 2024-
Ohio-2874, ¶ 36 (4th Dist.), citing Mender v. Chauncey, 2015-Ohio-4105, ¶ 9 (4th
Dist.). “We review the trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for a
directed verdict de novo because it presents a question of law.” Id. A de novo
review affords no deference to the trial court’s judgment. A.H. Sturgill Roofing,
Inc. v. Robert W. Setterlin & Sons Co., 2007-Ohio-2020, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.). Adams App. No. 25CA1212 6
2. Evidence
{¶17} “ ‘The admission or exclusion of relevant evidence rests within the
sound discretion of the trial court[.]’ ” (Bracket original) State v. Bailey, 2010-
Ohio-213, ¶ 9 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Haines, 2006-Ohio-6711, ¶ 50, citing
State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St.3d 59, 68, 2000-Ohio-275 (2000). “An abuse of
discretion connotes more than an error of judgment; it implies that the trial court's
attitude was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.” Id., citing Blakemore v.
Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). However, a party must follow a
specific procedural framework to have an exhibit admitted as evidence at trial
and made part of the record for purposes of appeal.
{¶18} “[Evid.R. 901(A)] provides that ‘[t]he requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent
claims.’ ” (Second brackets original) State v. Pigg, 2005-Ohio-2227, ¶ 31 (4th
Dist.). “The authentication requirement imposes on the party offering an item of
evidence the burden of proving that the item of evidence is what it purports to
be.” Id. “ ‘The proponent need not offer conclusive evidence as a foundation but
must merely offer sufficient evidence to allow the question as to authenticity or
genuineness to reach the jury.’ ” State v. Mitchell, 2007-Ohio-1696, ¶ 12 (8th
Dist.), quoting State v. Farrah, 2002 WL 576110, *5 (10th Dist. Apr. 18, 2002).
{¶19} After evidence is authenticated, and, important in our case, an
exhibit must be offered by a party and accepted by the court before it becomes
evidence in the case. See State v. Carver, 2022-Ohio-3223, ¶ 33 (4th Dist.). Adams App. No. 25CA1212 7
See also State v. Young, 2013-Ohio-3418, ¶ ¶ 9 (“The State offered the tape-
recorded conversation as Exhibit A, and the transcript of the recorded
conversation as Exhibit B, into evidence. The exhibits were admitted and the
State rested.”). “[M]ere presentation [of a document] during trial does not make it
part of the record.” State v. Zhovner, 2013-Ohio-749, ¶ 12 (3rd Dist.).
{¶20} “[A] bedrock principle of appellate practice in Ohio is that an appeals
court is limited to the record of the proceedings at trial.” Morgan v. Eads, 2004-
Ohio-6110, ¶ 13. “ ‘A reviewing court cannot consider an exhibit unless the
record demonstrates that the exhibit was formally admitted into evidence in the
lower court.’ ” McElrath v. Travel Safe.Com Vacation Ins., 2003-Ohio-7206, ¶ 23
(11th Dist.), quoting Cardone v. Cardone, 1998 WL 224934, *1 (9th Dist. 1998),
citing State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus.
See also, Moore v. Nichol, 1991 WL 228373, *4, (9th Dist. 1991), citing Conway
v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio App.2d 233 (8th Dist. May 6, 1976). (“This court
cannot consider an exhibit absent a sufficient showing that it was formally
admitted into evidence.”).
3. Easements
{¶21} Cases involving easements typically include deeds and/or survey or
plat maps as evidence. See e.g. Wheeler v. McBride, 2008-Ohio-5109, ¶ 27 (4th
Dist.) (court found an easement existed relying on a deed and plat map); Skaggs
v. Miller, 1996 WL 263374 (4th Dist. May 17, 1996) (deeds and a survey were
admitted as evidence that described the location of an easement). “In an
easement action, the proponent of the easement bears the burden of proving the Adams App. No. 25CA1212 8
existence of the easement by clear and convincing evidence.” Dunn v. Ransom,
2011-Ohio-4253, ¶ 31 (4th Dist.), citing Trattar v. Rausch, 154 Ohio St. 286,
292–293 (1950).
B. Analysis
{¶22} Exhibits A through F were attached to Evans’ complaint. Exhibits A
and B purported to be survey maps, while exhibits C, D, E, and F purported to be
deeds.
{¶23} At trial, Evans presented his testimony and six exhibits (A-F) in
support of his claim that he possessed an easement over Myers’ property. He
contended that the deeds contained language describing the easement and the
survey maps described and illustrated the easement.
{¶24} Each of Evans’ assignments of error references and relies on at
least two of the exhibits he presented at trial. However, a review of the trial
transcript reveals that Evans never sought to have any of the exhibits admitted
into evidence at trial. This conclusion was confirmed by the following discussion
that took place during oral argument before this court:
The Court: “what evidence was presented [to show the existence
of an easement]?”
Evans’ Counsel: “the evidence presented would be the language of the
deed” and the “survey[.]”
The Court: “none of the deeds or the plat map was actually
admitted into evidence?”
Evans’ Counsel: “that’s correct your honor, yes.” Adams App. No. 25CA1212 9
The Court: “[so] then it’s not properly, properly before us either at
this point then, correct?”
Evans’ Counsel: “yeah, arguably your honor, yeah, it was attached to
the initial complaint that’s correct and again trial
counsel in this case, I wasn’t trial counsel, there was
no testimony or no witness to confirm those exhibits.
So, they were attached but trial court never actually
admitted them into evidence, that’s correct.”
Court: “So, without those being into evidence, then what was
the evidence?”
Evans’ Counsel: “Nothing your honor, to be honest, concede that.”
{¶25} Our review of the record shows that Evans’ case relied significantly
on the exhibits. Without them, even when construing Evans’ testimony in his
favor, we find that he failed to submit clear and convincing evidence to establish
an easement over Myers’ property. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court
did not err in granting Myers a directed verdict. Accordingly, we overrule all five
of Evans’ assignments of error.
CONCLUSION
{¶26} Having overruled Evans’ assignments of error, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment that dismissed Evans’ complaint and granted Myers’
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Adams App. No. 25CA1212 10
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED and that the appellants shall pay the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Adams County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Smith, P.J. and Hess, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court,
BY: ____________________________ Kristy S. Wilkin, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 22, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.