In the case Village of Dalton v. City of Massillon, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 19AP0027, 2020-Ohio-1174, an Ohio appellate court held that under their ordinary meanings a duty to improve or maintain does not require a duty to replace property.
In this case, a dispute between a village and city emerged as to who had to replace a bridge on property subject to a shared lease. The sole dispute for trial was whether lease language requiring the village to make all improvements to the property as well as maintain the property also required the village to replace a bridge.
The Ohio appellate court held that under its ordinary meaning neither improve nor maintain could also mean replace. In its ruling, the Ohio appellate court rejected the argument that failure to maintain could give a rise to duty to replace because there was no evidence in this case that the villages failure to maintain resulted in the bridge needing to be replaced.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.