Opinion ID: 2262828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Interpreting the Lusby Easement using extrinsic evidence

Text: [¶ 24] The Commission points out that all of the documents contemporaneous with the Lusby Easement indicate that the walking easement was intended to extend to the middle of the river. The most telling of these documents is the sales contract. It unambiguously states that the Easement shall extend from midstream of the said North Platte River outward to a point 100 feet above and beyond the high water line. [¶ 25] The Landowners contend that [t]he fact that the parties chose not to use the language of the sales contract [in the Easement documents] speaks volumesthey changed their minds. This contention is undermined by the Commission's certifications to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Two certifications were submitted as part of an application for federal funding of part of the purchase price, the first soon after the sales contract was executed, and the second soon after the Easement documents were executed. Both certifications clearly reflect the Commission's understanding that the middle of the river was intended to be the boundary of the walking easement. [¶ 26] The Landowners claim that the sales contract cannot be used to help interpret the Easement documents because, under the doctrine of merger, the Easement documents are controlling over the sales contract. In support of this claim, they cite Bixler v. Oro Management, L.L.C., 2004 WY 29, ¶ 14, 86 P.3d 843, 848 (Wyo.2004), in which we stated that the deed is the final agreement and all prior terms, whether written or verbal, are extinguished and unenforceable. (Quoting Hansen v. Stichting Mayflower Recreational Fonds, 898 F.Supp. 1503, 1515 (C.D.Utah 1995).) They also rely on Sowerwine v. Keith, 997 P.2d 1018, 1020 (Wyo.2000), in which we stated that All conversations, contemporaneous negotiations, and parol agreements between the parties that occurred prior to the written agreement are merged into the written agreement. [¶ 27] The flaw in the Landowners' claim is exposed when the language from Sowerwine is placed in context: When contract provisions are not ambiguous or uncertain, the document speaks for itself. With an unambiguous agreement, we secure the parties' intent from the words of the agreement as they are expressed within the four corners of the document. All conversations, contemporaneous negotiations, and parol agreements between the parties that occurred prior to the written agreement are merged into the written agreement. We turn to extrinsic evidence and rules of contract construction only when the contract language is ambiguous and its meaning is doubtful or uncertain. Id. (Emphasis added and internal citations omitted.) Because the Lusby Easement deed is ambiguous, the merger doctrine does not preclude us from considering the extrinsic sales contract as an aid in interpreting the deed language. [¶ 28] The Commission submitted affidavits from several witnesses attesting that they have observed fishermen and hunters wading into the river at the Lusby Easement for many years. The district court found that these affidavits constituted ample evidence that it has been the long-standing custom for fishermen to wade into the river from the bank and to fish offshore, and concluded that, If the parties wanted the public restricted in the manner proposed by [the Landowners], one would think the Lusbys would have objected to the fishermen wading. We note, however, that the Lusbys sold their property in 1971. The affidavits refer to wading in the river only as far back as the early-1970's, which provides little insight into the parties' intentions in 1964 when the Lusby Easement was granted. [¶ 29] Even disregarding the affidavits, however, we find that the sales contract and the Commission's certifications firmly establish that the Lusby Easement was meant to extend to the middle of the river. [6] As pointed out by the district court, the Landowners presented no evidence on this point, but instead rely solely on their position that the language of the Easement is plain and unambiguous. Given the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and our agreement with the district court's conclusion that the Commission was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commission.