Clark v. Butler, 2012 Ohio 5618

Appellees Clark acquired ~5 acres of the land in August 2006; Butler acquired ~1.5 acres and later transferred it to Butler Events, LLC in January 2007.
Dispute centers on a septic system and leach field, with appellees’ discharge pipe reportedly draining onto land partly owned by appellants.
Butler allegedly cut appellees’ discharge pipe after appellees refused to allow tapping into the septic system.
Appellees filed suit seeking to enjoin interference with an easement for the septic system; appellants counterclaimed for declaratory judgment recognizing an easement in their favor.
May 7, 2010: trial court entered judgment in favor of appellees, granting declaratory judgment to use the leach field and enjoining interference; damages were later dismissed.
This appeal followed; the court previously dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order, then the trial court issued a subsequent entry on February 8, 2012 consistent with appellees’ position.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the first assignment of error meritorious.	Butler contends the weight of the evidence supports an easement.	Clark contends there is no easement and the issue is moot.	Moot; affirm/deny as to weighting not reached.
Whether appellants have an easement for the common sewerage system.	Butler asserts the deeds create an easement favorable to appellants.	Clark argues the deeds show the easement is granted to appellees, not reciprocally.	No error; trial court correctly found no reciprocal easement; appellees have the easement to use the leach field.

Long Beach Assn., Inc. v. Jones, 82 Ohio St.3d 574 (Ohio 1998) (deeds and intent construed; de novo review apply to written instruments)
Esteph v. Grumm, 175 Ohio App.3d 516 (4th Dist. 2008) (deeds interpreted for parties' intent; clear/unambiguous terms control)
Salyer v. Newman, 2011-Ohio-6676 (4th Dist. 2011) (deed interpretation; review of trial court’s legal conclusions de novo)