Opinion ID: 2600772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Were the Relocation and Removal Rights Assignable?

Text: ¶ 7 Plaintiffs acquired the real property burdened by GRDA's easements from the U.S. by quitclaim deed. A quitclaim deed executed in a form prescribed by statute conveys all right, title and interest of the grantor of the land. 16 O.S.1991 18; Bonebrake v. McNeill, 1971 OK 146, 491 P.2d 269. Accordingly, Plaintiffs acquired every interest of the U.S. in the real property that was not reserved in the quitclaim deed, unless that interest was not freely assignable. GRDA contends the relocation and removal rights held by the U.S. in connection with the utility easements were not assignable and therefore did not pass to Plaintiffs when they received the quitclaim deed. ¶ 8 The relocation and removal rights held by the U.S. were created in paragraph 11 of the easement grants between the U.S. and GRDA. When interests in or rights to property are created by deed, the deed should be interpreted and meaning of the parties thereto ascertained in the same manner as govern other written contracts. Jennings v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 1937 OK 228, 179 Okla. 561, 66 P.2d 1069, 1071. In determining whether the rights under a contract are assignable the Court must look at the construction of the contract itself and every case must turn at last upon the intention of the parties. Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., 1910 OK 279, 27 Okla. 180, 111 P. 326, 329. ¶ 9 Oklahoma has long held that rights under a contract are presumed to be assignable, unless the parties expressly provide otherwise. [2] Id. at 332; See also Earth Products Co. v. Oklahoma City, 1968 OK 39, 441 P.2d 399, 404. This presumption of assignability is in keeping with a long tradition to encourage economic and commercial development, with a view that whatever one owns cannot be rendered valueless as an asset in business and trade. Minnetonka, 111 P. at 332 Another commentator has suggested that a presumption of assignability for all contracts is consistent with the fundamental policy that free alienability . . . is essential to commerce. JOHN D. CALAMARI & JOSEPH M. PERRILLO, CONTRACTS 633, n. 138 (3d ed.1987). ¶ 10 However, Oklahoma case law has also recognized that certain rights and duties under a contract are too personal in character to permit them to be assigned. Minnetonka, 111 P. at 329; Earth Products Co., 441 P.2d at 404. These cases rest on the proposition that when the personal qualities of either party are material to the contract, an assignment would amount to a material change in the terms of the contract. [3] In Minnetonka Oil v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., 27 Okla. 180, 111 P. 326 (Okla.1910), the Court examined an assigned gas supply contract. Although the gas supply contract contained no express provision prohibiting assignment, the obligor gas company sought to relieve itself of its obligation under the contract by asserting that the assignment of the contract breached its terms. Although the Minnetonka court rejected this argument, it recognized that even in the absence of an explicit provision prohibiting assignment, a contract may by its nature or terms be too personal in character to be freely assigned. The Minnetonka Court observed that in some contracts the skill, credit, or some other personal quality or circumstances of a party may be a material inducement to the contract. [4] In these situations, performance by another would be an essentially different thing from that contracted for. [5] Minnetonka, 111 P. at 329. ¶ 11 Relying on this exception, GRDA argues that the relocation and removal rights created in the easements are too personal in character to permit them to be assigned. Specifically, GRDA asserts that it expected the U.S., and no one else, to exercise the relocation and removal rights. GRDA argues that it would never have made substantial improvements to the property otherwise. ¶ 12 In evaluating GRDA's contention that the U.S. possessed relocation and removal rights too personal in nature to be assigned without the consent of GRDA, we are presented with a question of contract construction. Id. The easement instruments must serve as the seminal gauge of the parties' intent. Id. at 331; See also Earth Products, 441 P.2d at 404-05. In every case, this question must turn upon the intention of the parties as manifested in the agreement itself. Minnetonka, 111 P. at 329. If the intention of the parties to the deed is plain and unambiguous, that intention must be ascertained solely from the language used in the conveyance. Messner v. Moorehead, 787 P.2d 1270, 1990 OK 17. If the court determines the deed is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be used to determine the intent of the parties. Crockett v. McKenzie, 867 P.2d 463, 1994 OK 3. ¶ 13 In our view, the language of paragraph 11 does not unambiguously resolve the issue of whether the relocation and removal rights are too personal in character to permit them to be assigned. The instruments themselves contain no express provisions limiting or prohibiting assignment of the relocation and removal rights. Paragraph 11 does not specifically limit or restrict in any substantial fashion the manner in which the U.S., as owners of the servient estate, can exercise the rights. On the contrary, the instruments allowed the U.S. to exercise the relocation and removal rights if the land occupied by the facilities was merely needed or the facilities were detrimental to governmental activities[.] ¶ 14 On the other hand, paragraph 11 contains some language which might be construed in such a fashion to warrant the conclusion that the relocation and removal rights are so personal that they may not be freely assigned. For example, paragraph 11 conditions the exercise of the relocation and removal rights on the land occupied by the facilities being needed by the United States or the existence of the facilities being detrimental to governmental activities[.] The easements also provide that relocation or removal of facilities may only be required at the direction of the  officer having immediate jurisdiction over the property. (emphasis added). ¶ 15 We view paragraph 11 as possessing an intrinsic uncertainty, shown within the four corners of the instrument, relating to whether the relocation and removal rights are so personal that they may not be freely assigned. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court, for the trier of fact, to ascertain the provision's true meaning by considering relevant parole and extrinsic evidence that bears on the parties' intent. If the trier of fact determines that the rights are freely assignable it must decide another issue, whether Plaintiffs' needs or activities with respect to developing the purchased property actually require the relocation or removal of the GRDA's facilities.