Lewanski Development, L.L.C. v. HD Strongsville Portfolio, L.P.

{¶ 33} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Rather than enforcing the clear terms of a contractual agreement between property owners, the majority applies a constrained interpretation to uphold the trial court’s decision.

{¶ 34} I believe that the trial court’s interpretation of the required conditions for the granting of an access easement under the 1994 ECR is contrary to the clear language expressed by the parties. Further, the trial court impermissibly inserted terms into the unambiguous agreement. While Wal-Mart may be a superstore, it does not possess rights that are…