Delaware Golf Club, L.L.C. v. Dornoch Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc., 2020 Ohio 880

Dornoch Estates (HOA) operates a subdivision wastewater treatment plant; Delaware Golf Club owns adjacent 18‑hole golf course that surrounds the plant.
A 1997 OEPA "Permit to Install" and appended engineering report used Bulletin 860 to calculate 76 acres required for land application of treated effluent, but the report noted 144 acres were available/provided.
In 2007 the parties executed an Agreement and Easement granting Dornoch an easement on the "Real Estate" (described as the entire 18‑hole golf course) to receive and irrigate the Association’s clean, treated outflow and to accept the facility’s entire outflow as permitted by the 1997 Permit.
OEPA approvals, later LAMP filings, and OEPA notices of violation (2014–2015) for the treatment plant occurred; Golf Club learned of violations and disputed acreage and operational issues; access to storm‑water pumping arrangements was also contested.
Golf Club sued seeking, among other relief, declaratory judgment reforming/limiting the easement to 76 acres (plus various contract/trespass claims). The trial court denied declaratory relief on the easement scope, found the easement unambiguous as to the entire golf course, awarded contract damages for denied storm‑water access, and entered other bench‑trial rulings.
On appeal the sole assignment argued the trial court erred by not granting declaratory relief reducing the easement to 76 acres; the appellate court affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of the easement — how many acres must be available for land application	Golf Club: engineering/Bulletin 860 shows only 76 acres are necessary; easement should be limited to required acreage	Dornoch: Agreement grants easement over the entire 18‑hole golf course; permit/report showing 144 acres provided controls	Held: Easement language is clear/unambiguous; it applies to the entire golf course, so court may not rewrite it to limit to 76 acres
Whether servient owner may develop/restrict use absent unreasonable interference	Golf Club: residual property rights allow development so long as it does not unreasonably interfere; limiting to 76 acres accommodates development	Dornoch: Agreement ‘‘provides otherwise’’ by expressly granting use of the entire course for outflow and requiring acceptance of entire outflow	Held: The express terms of the written easement govern; because the agreement delineates the easement scope, the servient owner’s development arguments cannot override the contract language
Use of extrinsic/scientific evidence to alter an unambiguous easement	Golf Club: scientific evidence at trial demonstrates 76 acres suffices and supports declaratory relief	Dornoch: extrinsic evidence cannot alter clear contractual easement terms; Permit/report does not limit acreage in the agreement	Held: Trial court properly considered evidence but could not reform or alter unambiguous easement terms; decree affirmed

Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401, 972 N.E.2d 586 (establishes de novo review for declaratory judgment matters)
Cliffs and Creeks, LLC v. Swallie, 128 N.E.3d 825 (when extrinsic evidence is used to define an easement, factual issues may arise for the trial court)
Brown v. Brown, 102 N.E.3d 72 (appellate deference to trial court fact‑finding and credibility in bench trials)
Alban v. R.K. Co., 15 Ohio St.2d 229, 239 N.E.2d 22 (definition and nature of easements)
Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas Co., 38 Ohio St.2d 244, 313 N.E.2d 374 (contract construction principles for written instruments)
Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 374 N.E.2d 146 (court cannot create terms not expressed in a clear grant of easement)
Apel v. Katz, 83 Ohio St.3d 11, 697 N.E.2d 600 (language of the easement together with circumstances defines extent and limitations)
Watson v. Caldwell Hotel, LLC, 91 N.E.3d 179 (servient owner may use property so long as use does not unreasonably interfere, unless agreement provides otherwise)