In the case of Teays Valley Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Struckman, 2023-Ohio-244, the appellate court held that the explicit terms of a contract between an individual and school board were controlling because the plain language of the contract clearly indicated the intent of the parties.
In this case, a former property owner argued that the former owner retained the right to farm on the property after it was sold to a school board until such time as the school board built a school on the property. In response, the school board argued that the plain language of the contract stated that the former owner would lose the right to farm on the property once the school board began “construction on any such portion of the real estate.” 2023-Ohio-244 at ¶ 1. The appellate court agreed with the school board.
In support of its decision in favor of the school board, the appellate court explained that the plain language of a contract will prevail “unless manifest absurdity results, or unless some other meaning is clearly evidenced from the face or overall contents of the instrument.” 2023-Ohio-244 at ¶ 71. The appellate court also emphasized that the school board was not arbitrarily occupying the property just to terminate the farming rights as the school board was building a facility to house a student organization.
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 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.