Opinion ID: 2570200
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extrinsic evidence supports Yakutat's position.

Text: We next turn to extrinsic evidence to determine whether structural improvements and additions is ambiguous. The extrinsic evidence on which the superior court relied to ascertain the parties' intentions largely consisted of the trial testimony of Powell, Yakutat's mayor, and the deposition testimony of Thompson, Sitka Sound's former owner. Powell testified that it was Yakutat's intention under the option to purchase section to have the right to purchase and maintain major integral parts, including the refrigeration and electrical systems. He testified that he and Thompson agreed that individual components of an overall plant system, including compressors, were subject to Yakutat's option to purchase and would not be removed at the end of the lease. Thompson testified that Sitka Sound did not intend to remove essential components. He also stated that Sitka Sound was entitled under this provision to remove only free-standing, portable items that were not integral parts of the overall system. He testified that Sitka Sound intended refrigeration improvements and components, including compressors, condensers, receivers and the like, to be subject to Yakutat's option to purchase, along with other items integral to the overall plant system. NPPI argues that Thompson's testimony, given fifteen years after he wrote the letters about the equipment Sitka Sound installed, should not be seen as interpreting the lease; rather, it asserts, he merely assumed that Sitka Sound would not want to remove the equipment if the lease terminated. It argues that his description of the lease provisions concerning the removal of machinery also shows his misunderstanding of the lease. NPPI asserts that he testified that the clause was limited to freestanding items, but that the lease language contradicts his testimony. NPPI similarly argues that Powell testified that equipment could not be removed if it is an integral part of the system, but it points out that the lease does not differentiate between items that are integral and those that are not. NPPI argues that Thompson did not originally negotiate the clause concerning structural improvements, because that clause is from a lease predating Sitka Sound's tenure as lessee. NPPI's arguments regarding Thompson's testimony are not implausible. But the superior court also relied on Powell's testimony, stating that it specifically [found] the hearing testimony of Larry Powell regarding the intent of the parties as to the lease language to be credible. The trial court's findings regarding the credibility of witnesses and weighing of the evidence may be reversed only if clearly erroneous [40] Having reviewed Powell's testimony, we cannot say that the superior court clearly erred in assessing his credibility. Moreover, Thompson's testimony corroborated Powell's position. The testimony of both witnesses supported Yakutat's position. We therefore conclude that this extrinsic evidence supports the superior court's conclusion that the disputed items are structural improvements or additions. Based on the leases' language and the extrinsic evidence, we conclude that the parties' conflicting interpretations of structural improvements and additions are both reasonable; [41] ambiguity therefore exists.