Opinion ID: 197341
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lease-Option Agreement

Text: The Lease-Option Agreement, unlike the Partnership Agreement, did not pertain to services relative to Indian lands.25 The Lease-Option simply provided that Schiavi Homes enjoyed the right to use and improve the Holden Lot for the purpose of conducting its business. It also afforded Schiavi Homes an option to purchase the Holden Lot. The Lease-Option never mentioned and did not relate to the provision of services. In addition, although it did involve real property that PIN owned (the Holden Lot), as previously noted this land was not within the parameters of S 81 because it was not trust land. Even if the Holden Lot did constitute Indian trust lands, S 81 would not apply to the Lease-Option Agreement 25. The Assignment of Lease executed on December 1, 1988, transferring Schiavi Homes' entire interest in the Lease, and particularly the option to purchase the Holden Lot, to Key Bank as additional collateral for the repayment of its Guaranteed Loan in the amount of $3,500,000 did not require Secretarial approval under S 81. This agreement did not entail any services and pertained only to the Holden Lot not to PIN's trust lands. On July 20, 1989, moreover, PIN secured Bureau of Indian Affairs approval for this Assignment pursuant to Title IV of the Indian Financing Act of 1974, 25 U.S.C. SS 1521-1524. -45- 45 because the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act provided that 25 U.S.C. SS 396 & 415 would govern leases involving PIN territory. See 25 U.S.C. S 1724(g)(3)(A)&(B) (providing that 25 U.S.C. SS 396a-396g & 415-415d govern leasing of PIN Territory); see also Koberstein, 762 F.2d at 619 (indicating that S 81 governs transactions relative to Indian lands for which Congress has not passed a specific statute).