Should Terms of Instrument Be Clear and Unambiguous for Creating An Express Easement ?
In Harbor Island Association, Inc. v. Ottawa Regional Planning Commission, 6th Dist. No. OT-03-005, 2003 Ohio 5858, the original plat restrictions language referred to granting the lot owners the right to "use of the extension westerly and northerly of the North Shore Blvd. for roadway purposes to provide access to public highways thereover.'" Id. P 16.
The Court determined that this language did not clearly and unambiguously create an express easement for the appellant-lot owner's benefit. Id. P 21.
The Court acknowledged the appellant's right to use North Shore Blvd., but found that there was no indication that the appellant's right attached to the specific location where the roadway was placed in the original plat. Id.
The appellant claimed that a roadway, which was established in an original plat, created an express easement
The Court stated:
"The existence of an express easement involves the construction of an instrument of conveyance and is, therefore, a matter of law if the terms of the instrument are clear and unambiguous. See Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 241, 374 N.E.2d 146, paragraph one of the syllabus." Harbor Island, P 19