Lewanski Development, L.L.C. v. HD Strongsville Portfolio, L.P., 956 N.E.2d 368

This case concerns an easement for extending Ring Road to connect the Triangle's northern and southern sections in Strongsville, Ohio.
Section 5.1 of the 1994 Development Agreement requires a mutually acceptable southerly easement agreement and an amendment to the 1994 ECR under Section 2.1F for extending Ring Road.
The 1994 ECR prohibits access easements for the benefit of properties outside the northern section except per Section 2.1F, which references Section 5.1.
Wal-Mart initially agreed to the easement; Home Depot and HDSP later object to the Ring Road extension.
Lewanski and Lowe’s sought to extend Ring Road; Lewanski, R.E. Services, Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, and the City pursued a formal easement arrangement.
The trial court granted declaratory judgment in favor of Lewanski, R.E. Services, and TGI Pearl Road Investors; the appellate majority affirmed; the dissent would reverse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Wal-Mart’s authority to grant the Ring Road easement under 1994 ECR and 5.1	Wal-Mart had rights as owner of any affected portion per 5.1	Wal-Mart could not unilaterally grant and required a mutually acceptable easement	Wal-Mart had the right to grant the easement under 5.1 (majority ruling)

Saunders v. Mortensen, 101 Ohio St.3d 86 (2004-Ohio-24) (contract interpretation; de novo review where interpreting contract terms)
Holdeman v. Epperson, 111 Ohio St.3d 551 (2006-Ohio-6209) (contract interpretation; plain meaning governs)
Shifrin v. Forest City Ents., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (1992) (when terms are unambiguous, courts will not imply new contract language)
Hamilton Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Cos., 86 Ohio St.3d 270 (1999-Ohio-270) (contract interpretation; reading instrument as a whole)
Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 353 (1997-Ohio-344) (contract terms interpreted using plain and ordinary meaning)