Opinion ID: 2515692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 2] Omohundro Trusts present this issue for our consideration in Case No. S-08-0027: Can the covenants and restrictions contained in the Covenants for Twin Lakes, Buffalo, Wyoming, which document specifically states that the restrictive covenants were created for and imposed upon Tracts 1-5, be extended by implication to also restrict the use of Tract 6? The Sullivan Group lists three issues in Case No. S-08-0027: 1. Is there any reason, as a matter of law, that the Exhibit B lands could not be burdened in favor of the Exhibit A lands for whose benefit the Covenants were imposed? 2. Is there any ambiguity in the language of Section 3.13 of the Covenants? 3. Does the plain language of Section 3.13 of the Covenants support the District Court's declaratory judgment that the consent and approval of all Landowners is necessary before the Developer can take any action, step or procedure to annex the Exhibit B lands to the City of Buffalo under terms which would allow the City to receive ownership and control of a portion of these territorial water rights? In its cross-appeal in Case No. S-08-0028, the Sullivan Group states the following issue: If the Supreme Court does not simply affirm the District Court's summary judgment based on the plain meaning of the Covenants, may the Court consider uncontroverted facts and contextual evidence concerning the water rights which were the subject of Section 3.13 of the Covenants in the course of its de novo review? Omohundro Trusts restate the issue in Case No. S-08-0028 as: Should this Court, in construing the Covenants, consider extrinsic evidence that contradicts the plain language of the document and is asserted for the purpose of enlarging and adding to the restrictive covenant at issue?