Opinion ID: 2507160
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court Must Look to Extrinsic Evidence of the Parties' Intent

Text: ¶ 27 In considering the meaning of surplus property the district court on remand must look to extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent. [W]hen a contract provision is ambiguous because it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation due to uncertain meaning of terms, missing terms, or other facial deficiencies, extrinsic evidence is admissible to explain the intent of the parties. [11] Because the district court rested its decision on the holding that, as a matter of law, the contract referred to both state and federal property, we are not convinced that the issue received a full evidentiary airing. Accordingly, on remand, the district court may rely on evidence presented at the first trial but should allow the parties an opportunity to present additional evidence in this regard.