Court Opinion

ID: 9511641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:06:39.977067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:06.819704
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WARNER
concurs.
¶19 I concur with the Opinion of the Court. The only alternative to this Court’s conclusions is that the warranty deed that effectuated the sale of the property in question from Ingold to Crevelings was ambiguous, and thus a trial would be necessary to determine the intention of the parties. However, Crevelings specifically argued that the deed is unambiguous and is to be interpreted as a matter of law. This Court will not formulate arguments or locate authorities for parties on appeal. State v. Kearney, 2005 MT 171, ¶ 16, 327 Mont. 485, ¶ 16, 115 P.3d 214, ¶ 16.