Court Opinion

ID: 9402637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 14:05:57.577362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:01.224472
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
06/16/2023 09:05 AM CDT

                                                         - 509 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        314 Nebraska Reports
                                        BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                                                Cite as 314 Neb. 509

                                Brush & Co., a Nebraska corporation,
                               appellant, v. W. O. Zangger & Son, Inc.,
                                 a Nebraska corporation, appellee.
                                                     ___ N.W.2d ___

                                           Filed June 16, 2023.    No. S-22-488.

                 1. Contracts. The interpretation of a contract and whether the contract is
                    ambiguous are questions of law subject to independent review.
                 2. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a
                    lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted
                    evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or
                    as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that
                    the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
                 3. Contracts. In interpreting a contract, a court must first determine, as a
                    matter of law, whether the contract is ambiguous.
                 4. ____. A contract must receive a reasonable construction and must be
                    construed as a whole.
                 5. ____. If possible, effect must be given to every part of a contract.
                 6. Contracts: Intent. A contract which is written in clear and unambigu-
                    ous language is not subject to interpretation or construction; rather, the
                    intent of the parties must be determined from the contents of the con-
                    tract, and the contract must be enforced according to its terms.
                 7. Contracts: Evidence. A contract found to be ambiguous presents a
                    question of fact and permits the consideration of extrinsic evidence to
                    determine the meaning of the contract.
                 8. Contracts: Words and Phrases. A contract is ambiguous when a word,
                    phrase, or provision in the contract has, or is susceptible of, at least two
                    reasonable but conflicting interpretations or meanings.
                 9. Contracts. When a contract is ambiguous, the court may consider all
                    facts and circumstances leading up to the contract’s execution, the
                    nature and situation of the subject matter, and the apparent purpose of
                    the contract.
                                    - 510 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    314 Nebraska Reports
                  BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                          Cite as 314 Neb. 509

10. Contracts: Intent. In the absence of anything to indicate a contrary
    intention, instruments executed at the same time, by the same parties,
    for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transaction are
    legally one instrument and will be construed together as if they were as
    much one in form as they are in substance.
11. Contracts. Parties to a contract may incorporate contractual terms by
    reference to a separate, noncontemporaneous document.
12. Contracts: Summary Judgment. The interpretation of an ambiguous
    contract presents an issue of fact not appropriate for determination on
    summary judgment.
13. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an
    analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.
14. ____. An appellate court may, at its discretion, discuss issues unneces-
    sary to the disposition of an appeal where those issues are likely to recur
    during further proceedings.

  Appeal from the District Court for Valley County: Karin L.
Noakes, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

  Edward D. Hotz, of Pansing, Hogan, Ernst & Bachman,
L.L.P., for appellant.

   Elizabeth L. Enroth and Donald L. Swanson, of Koley
Jessen, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.

  Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and
Freudenberg, JJ.

   Cassel, J.
                      I. INTRODUCTION
   After parties to a long-term written lease purportedly failed
to agree when renegotiating minimum rent, the owner sued
the tenant for breach of contract. The district court granted
a partial summary judgment construing the lease and, after
a trial, entered a judgment, from which the owner appeals.
Construing the lease together with a contemporaneous instru-
ment that referenced an earlier document, we find ambigu-
ity concerning the lowest amount of minimum rent possi-
ble. This ambiguity created a factual issue, which precluded
                            - 511 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
              BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 509

summary judgment. We reverse the judgment and remand the
cause for further proceedings.
                       II. BACKGROUND
               1. Relationship Between Parties
   A brief historical background concerning the parties and
their relationship is helpful. Brush & Co. (Brush) is a family
company, and its president is William Brush (William). W. O.
Zangger & Son, Inc. (WOZ), is a corporation that has had vari-
ous members of the Zangger family act as president.
   WOZ is engaged in agricultural operations, including hybrid
popcorn seed production and row crop agriculture. Land
referred to as “South Place,” located near WOZ’s operation,
was integral to WOZ’s business. Charles P. Zangger acquired
the land in 1977, and his family farmed it since that time.
   In the early 1980s, Brush became involved in the “popcorn
business” after William met with Zangger. William recognized
that WOZ and Zangger were in financial distress due to a farm
crisis. In 1984, WOZ, its shareholders, and Brush entered into
an “Agreement for Reorganization of [WOZ].” The agreement
gave Brush the option to purchase all of WOZ’s stock for $1
per share. Brush later exercised the option and became the
100-percent owner of WOZ.
   In 2005, Brush sold 50 percent of WOZ’s stock to Zangger.
On the same day, the parties executed a “Shareholders
Agreement,” which set forth terms for a partial redemption
of Brush’s stock. The Shareholders Agreement was referenced
in a subsequent agreement and will be discussed further in
the analysis. Also on that day, William and Zangger entered
into an “Operating and Management Agreement,” which
touched on rental of South Place by WOZ and referred to the
Shareholders Agreement.
             2. 2008 Agreement and Farm Lease
  On the same day in 2008, Brush and WOZ signed an
“Agreement” and a “Farm Lease.” These documents are at the
heart of this appeal. Key provisions of each document follow.
                              - 512 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
               BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                       Cite as 314 Neb. 509

   The 2008 Agreement incorporated several recitals concern-
ing the 2005 Shareholders Agreement. It stated that the par-
ties wished to carry out the terms of paragraph 15 of the
2005 Shareholders Agreement. The 2008 Agreement stated that
WOZ would execute a deed transferring South Place to Brush
and that Brush would contemporaneously execute its stock
certificate in WOZ. The 2008 Agreement further stated that
“[t]he parties shall enter into a lease wherein Brush . . . leases
to [WOZ] the South Place on the terms and conditions set forth
in said lease.”
   The 2008 Farm Lease contained a number of recitals that
were incorporated into the lease. One declared that Brush was
withdrawing from WOZ and was receiving South Place as part
of the compensation for Brush’s interest in WOZ. Another
stated that “for purposes of the valuation and division of prop-
erty as a part of [Brush’s] withdrawal from [WOZ], the divi-
sion and valuation of such interest [are] dependent upon the
establishment of a long term lease as provided herein which
provides mutual benefits and advantages to each party.” Other
recitals set forth mutual advantages of the lease: “the long
term availability of [South Place] to [WOZ] for the continued
agricultural operations, hybrid seed production, and the stra-
tegic location of the property” and “the long term availability
of an established landlord/tenant arrangement and the financial
security and income interest of [Brush] in continuing such a
relationship based upon the rental arrangements established
as a part of this Farm Lease.” The final recital stated that
the parties intended for WOZ to have the opportunity to con-
tinue leasing the property on a long-term basis with a right of
first refusal.
   The Farm Lease identified Brush as owner and WOZ as
tenant. It established a term of 24 years, from March 2009 to
the end of February 2034. The lease contained two sections
addressing rental payments, which we will set out in full in the
analysis. We summarize them here.
                            - 513 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
              BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 509

   Section 4 of the Farm Lease referred to two categories of
rent. One was minimum rent, which rent was due annually
by March 1. For the first 3 years, the lease set minimum rent
at $35,000. The other category was possible additional rent,
which was due annually by July 15. The additional rent was
calculated by taking 25 percent of the pretax and prebonus
net profits of WOZ. The lease provided that “[i]n calculating
the total rent, the $35,000.00 prepayment . . . will be used as
a credit against the said 25% of net profits as defined above.”
   Section 5 of the Farm Lease addressed renegotiation of
minimum rent, which was to occur every 3 years. The lease
provided that if the parties were unable to agree on an amount
by February 1 of the renegotiation year, the lease would con-
tinue for 1 year “at the previously agreed minimum rental
amount, however, the minimum rental rate shall not be lower
than $35,000.00.” The rental arrangement would then terminate
at the end of that 1-year period. The parties renegotiated the
minimum rent in 2013 and 2016.
                3. Addendum to Farm Lease
   In 2016, Brush negotiated a mortgage loan secured by South
Place and the parties executed an “Addendum to Farm Lease.”
Although the addendum modified rental payments and included
a “cap” on rent, the addendum ceased to be in force in 2018
and neither party contends that the cap has any application to
the appeal before us.
                   4. 2019 Negotiations of
                        Minimum Rent
   In accordance with the Farm Lease, the parties attempted
to renegotiate the minimum rent. After preliminary proposals
were exchanged, final negotiations occurred on January 31,
2019. On that day, WOZ proposed increasing minimum rent to
$80,000 if rent were capped at $120,000. Brush asked if WOZ
would consider a minimum of $70,000 with a cap of $140,000.
WOZ remained with its previous offer.
                             - 514 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
              BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 509

   The parties’ communications on January 31, 2019, reflected
their respective understandings of the lease’s terms. Brush
stated: “The Farm Lease provides in Renegotiation of Minimum
Rent, that ‘the minimum rental rate shall not be lower th[an]
$35,000’. We will continue for the next three years with a
Minimum Rent of $35,000. There will be no cap on the share
of profits.” WOZ replied: “[W]e do not agree with your inter-
pretation[.] It looks like it will default at midnight. We will
then send you a check for [$45,000] and continue as the lease
says for one more year, cropping year 2019.” Brush retorted:
“Better read the lease. It is not in default. ‘The minimum rental
rate shall not be lower than $35,000.00’, which is what it is set
at for the next three years.”
                           5. Pleadings
   Brush sued WOZ. It set forth separate “cause[s] of action”
for express breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and
breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
   The breach of contract cause of action was premised upon
WOZ’s failure to pay rent. Brush alleged that WOZ did not
pay any rent due in 2019. According to Brush, even if the
Farm Lease terminated on February 29, 2020, WOZ still owed
rent for that crop year of 25 percent of WOZ’s pretax, pre-
bonus profits for the fiscal year immediately preceding April
30, 2020.
   Brush requested a declaration that the Farm Lease did not
terminate in February 2020 and an order that the lease be
specifically enforced until February 2034. In the alternative
to specific performance, Brush requested damages calculated
based upon future rent anticipated until 2034.
   Finally, Brush alleged that WOZ breached the implied duty
of good faith and fair dealing. Brush asserted that WOZ unrea-
sonably refused to negotiate minimum rent without a cap
on rent.
   Insofar as it is pertinent to the present appeal, WOZ’s opera-
tive answer denied the allegations of Brush’s complaint.
                             - 515 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
              BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 509

                     6. Summary Judgment
   Each party moved for summary judgment. The court consid-
ered the motions separately. The court denied Brush’s motion
as to breach. It found that there were material facts in dispute,
including whether WOZ renegotiated the lease agreement in
good faith.
   Three months later, the court entered partial summary judg-
ment in WOZ’s favor. The court rejected Brush’s argument
that the Farm Lease required a minimum rent of $35,000. The
court reasoned that the provision in the lease’s section 5 stat-
ing that if the parties did not agree, the lease would continue
at the previously agreed-upon minimum rent, which “shall not
be lower than $35,000,” contemplated that the minimum rent
could be less than $35,000. The court explained, “The plain
reading of the contract shows that after the first three years
of the original agreement, the minimum rent of $35,000 only
applies to the year following the failure to agree on mini-
mum rent.”
   The court found that the terms regarding rental of South
Place were unenforceable beyond the terms of the 2016 agree-
ment. It reached that conclusion on the basis that rent was
an essential term of the Farm Lease and that no minimum
rent was established for the period between March 2020 and
February 2034.
   The court determined that when the parties did not agree
on minimum rent by February 1, 2019, the termination clause
went into effect. Under that clause, it reasoned, WOZ had to
continue farming until February 29, 2020, at the minimum
rental rate agreed to in 2016 and to pay any additional rent
specified in section 4 of the Farm Lease by July 15, 2019.
   The court found that there were material facts in dispute as
to whether WOZ violated the implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing when renegotiating the minimum rent.
                          7. Trial
  The court conducted a bench trial on whether WOZ breached
a promise to renegotiate in good faith and on any damages
                                  - 516 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     314 Nebraska Reports
                  BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                          Cite as 314 Neb. 509

that may have resulted. William explained that the rationale
behind the renegotiation of minimum rent every 3 years was
to cover basic expenses like real estate taxes. The possible
additional rent, William testified, was “in lieu of any compen-
sation to Brush . . . for the value of the popcorn hybrid seed
business” that Brush’s staff helped WOZ develop. Because the
Farm Lease stated that minimum rent shall never be less than
$35,000, William believed his agreement to that amount settled
the matter.
   When renegotiating minimum rent in 2019, WOZ wished to
continue farming South Place but sought a cap to make rental
payments more predictable. An exhibit reflecting calculations
and payments of rent showed that from 2009 to 2019, WOZ’s
rent payments to Brush ranged from a low of $42,700 in 2010
to a high of $324,923 in 2014. The average rent paid during
that period amounted to $118,530.

                            8. Judgment
   The court entered its judgment on the matters heard at trial.
The court considered several factors to determine whether
WOZ negotiated in good faith. Ultimately, the court found that
Brush failed to meet its burden to show that WOZ acted in bad
faith and that it failed to present any evidence supporting dam-
ages. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for WOZ and
against Brush.
   Brush filed a timely appeal, which we moved to our docket. 1

                III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   Brush alleges, restated and reordered, that the district court
erred (1) in failing to interpret the Farm Lease to provide
that the minimum rent could never be lower than $35,000,
(2) in failing to find that WOZ violated its duty of good faith
and fair dealing by insisting on a cap on rent, (3) in prohib-
iting evidence of expectant contract damages and limiting
1
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
                                 - 517 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     314 Nebraska Reports
                 BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                         Cite as 314 Neb. 509

damages to those incurred during the unsuccessful renegotia-
tion of minimum rent, and (4) in failing to award damages for
the March 2019 to February 2020 crop year.

                IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1] The interpretation of a contract and whether the con-
tract is ambiguous are questions of law subject to indepen-
dent review. 2
   [2] An appellate court affirms a lower court’s grant of sum-
mary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as
to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. 3

                        V. ANALYSIS
                      1. Minimum Rent
   Analyzing Brush’s assignment of error concerning rent
requires us to determine the correct interpretation of the lease.
Brush believed that $35,000 was a “floor” on rent and that its
offer of $35,000 meant that the lease continued for the next 3
years with that amount as minimum rent. According to Brush,
it did not need WOZ’s agreement to $35,000, because that
amount was the lowest rent possible under the Farm Lease. But
WOZ contended that there was no floor on the parties’ 2019
minimum rent negotiations, and thus, Brush could not unilater-
ally accept $35,000 as minimum rent.

                     (a) Principles of Law
   [3-6] We start by recalling familiar principles regard-
ing interpretation of a contract. In interpreting a contract, a
court must first determine, as a matter of law, whether the
2
    Brauer v. Hartmann, 313 Neb. 957, 987 N.W.2d 604 (2023).
3
    Community First Bank v. First Central Bank McCook, 310 Neb. 839, 969
    N.W.2d 661 (2022).
                                 - 518 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     314 Nebraska Reports
                  BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                          Cite as 314 Neb. 509

contract is ambiguous. 4 A contract must receive a reasonable
construction and must be construed as a whole. 5 If possible,
effect must be given to every part of a contract. 6 A contract
which is written in clear and unambiguous language is not
subject to interpretation or construction; rather, the intent
of the parties must be determined from the contents of the
contract, and the contract must be enforced according to
its terms. 7
   [7-9] A contract found to be ambiguous presents a question
of fact and permits the consideration of extrinsic evidence to
determine the meaning of the contract. 8 A contract is ambigu-
ous when a word, phrase, or provision in the contract has, or
is susceptible of, at least two reasonable but conflicting inter-
pretations or meanings. 9 When a contract is ambiguous, the
court may consider all facts and circumstances leading up to
the contract’s execution, the nature and situation of the subject
matter, and the apparent purpose of the contract. 10
               (b) Documents To Be Construed
   [10] We next determine which documents to consider with
respect to the minimum rent issue. The district court appears
to have focused exclusively on the terms of the Farm Lease.
But the parties signed the Farm Lease on the same day that
they signed the Agreement and as part of the same transaction.
In the absence of anything to indicate a contrary intention,
instruments executed at the same time, by the same parties,
 4
     Acklie v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 306 Neb. 108, 944 N.W.2d 297
     (2020).
 5
     Community First Bank v. First Central Bank McCook, supra note 3.
 6
     Id.
 7
     Keller v. Bones, 260 Neb. 202, 615 N.W.2d 883 (2000).
 8
     Community First Bank v. First Central Bank McCook, supra note 3.
 9
     Acklie v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., supra note 4.
10
     Nebraska Depository Inst. Guar. Corp. v. Stastny, 243 Neb. 36, 497
     N.W.2d 657 (1993).
                                   - 519 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                  BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                          Cite as 314 Neb. 509

for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transac-
tion are legally one instrument and will be construed together
as if they were as much one in form as they are in substance. 11
Thus, we will read and construe the 2008 Agreement and Farm
Lease as one instrument.
   [11] Those contemporaneous documents are not the only
documents to be considered. During oral argument, WOZ’s
counsel “agree[d] with looking outside the 2008 Agreement
as well because . . . the 2008 [Agreement] therein refer-
ences the 2005 agreement.” Indeed, parties to a contract may
incorporate contractual terms by reference to a separate, non-
contemporaneous document. 12 Here, the 2008 Agreement spe-
cifically referenced and incorporated paragraph 15 of the 2005
Shareholders Agreement. Thus, we also consider the 2005
Shareholders Agreement.
   In connection with the 2005 Shareholders Agreement,
William and Zangger contemporaneously entered into the
Operating and Management Agreement concerning WOZ.
That operating agreement referenced the 2005 Shareholders
Agreement, stating, “contemporaneously herewith, the parties
hereto have entered into a shareholders agreement.” Because
these documents were executed in the course of the same trans-
action, we construe the 2005 agreements together.
                    (c) Terms of Documents
  We now set forth the pertinent terms contained in the
2008 Farm Lease and Agreement and the 2005 Shareholders
Agreement. The Farm Lease set forth the following rent
provisions:
        4. Rental. The Tenant agrees to use the farm for hybrid
     seed production and row-crop agricultural purposes, and
     to pay the Owner or its assigns, rent in the minimum
11
     See Nowak v. Burke Energy Corp., 227 Neb. 463, 418 N.W.2d 236 (1988).
12
     11 Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts by Samuel
     Williston § 30:25 (4th ed. 2012).
                             - 520 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
              BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                      Cite as 314 Neb. 509

     amount of $35,000.00 each year with said $35,000.00
     being paid on May 1, 2009, March 1, 2010 and March
     1, 2011. As possible additional rent, by July 15 of each
     year, a profit sharing distribution shall be made calculated
     by taking 25% of the pre-tax and pre-bonus net profits
     of [WOZ] for the preceding fiscal year which ends the
     immediately preceding April 30. In calculating the total
     rent, the $35,000.00 prepayment shall not be deducted as
     an operating expense, but will be used as a credit against
     the said 25% of net profits as defined above. As an exam-
     ple, in the event the net profits are $140,000.00 or less,
     the $35,000.00 prepaid rental payment will constitute the
     full rental in that particular year.
        [Address for submission of payments and messages.]
        5. Renegotiation of Minimum Rent. During the term of
     this Lease, the minimum rental amount shall be renegoti-
     ated by the Owner and the Tenant every three (3) years.
     The first such renegotiation shall be concluded no later
     than February 1, 2013, and shall apply to the leased term
     for March 1, 2013 to the last day of February, 2016. The
     minimum rental rate shall be renegotiated every three (3)
     years thereafter during the term of this Farm Lease in a
     like manner. In the event the parties are unable to agree
     upon the renegotiated minimum rental amount by the
     first day of February of the renegotiation year, the lease
     shall be continued for an additional period of one (1)
     year at the previously agreed minimum rental amount,
     however, the minimum rental rate shall not be lower than
     $35,000.00. At the conclusion of such additional one (1)
     year, the rental arrangement shall terminate, however,
     the Tenant’s right of first refusal shall continue in full
     force and effect.
   The 2008 Agreement recited that the 2005 Shareholders
Agreement established a procedure in paragraph 15 for
redeeming Brush’s stock. The 2008 Agreement stated that
“the parties hereto now wish to carry out the terms of
                               - 521 -
          Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                   314 Nebraska Reports
               BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                       Cite as 314 Neb. 509

paragraph 15 of said shareholders agreement” and that “para-
graph 15.1(b) provides that Brush shall offer the ‘South
Place’ for rent to [WOZ] for a certain price or formula, which
recognizes intangible value existing in [WOZ].”
   Paragraph 15 of the 2005 Shareholders Agreement stated
that if “‘South Place’ is distributed to Brush . . . , same shall be
offered for rent to [WOZ] for the greater of $35,000.00 or 25%
of the corporate pretax, pre-bonus net profits, each year.” The
Operating and Management Agreement similarly provided that
if there was a partial redemption of Brush’s stock for South
Place, “WOZ shall have the first right to rent said ‘South Place’
each year for 25% of pre-tax, pre-bonus profits or $35,000.00,
whichever is greater.”
              (d) Application of Principles of Law
   We apply the principles of law set out above to determine
whether the lease and incorporated documents are clear regard-
ing minimum rent or whether there is ambiguity. This depends
upon whether there are two reasonable, conflicting ways of
interpreting the agreement.
   One reading is that minimum rent owed by WOZ to Brush
could never be lower than $35,000. The $35,000 amount
is identified as a minimum amount in sections 4 and 5 of
the Farm Lease, in paragraph 15 of the 2005 Shareholders
Agreement, and also in the 2005 Operating and Management
Agreement. The parties could have contemplated that such
an amount was necessary to cover basic expenses incurred
every year.
   A different interpretation is also logical. The lease unequiv-
ocally set $35,000 as the minimum rent for the first 3 years.
But it also required the parties to then renegotiate the mini-
mum rent every 3 years. The parties could have easily pro-
vided in the lease that rent shall never be less than $35,000.
At one point, they do. But the Farm Lease’s provision that
“the minimum rental rate shall not be lower than $35,000.00”
appears only in a clause addressing the consequences when
                                     - 522 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                   BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                           Cite as 314 Neb. 509

the parties fail to agree upon renegotiated rent and the lease
continues for 1 year. The parties undoubtedly contemplated
that circumstances could change over the course of the 24-year
lease, and it would be reasonable to read the lease as not set-
ting an absolute minimum amount of rent.
   [12] We conclude that the provision regarding minimum
rent is ambiguous, because the lease is susceptible of at
least two reasonable interpretations. The interpretation of an
ambiguous contract presents an issue of fact not appropri-
ate for determination on summary judgment. 13 Accordingly,
the court’s entry of partial summary judgment on the issue
must be reversed and the cause must be remanded for fur-
ther proceedings.
   Our disposition is a general remand. 14 The parties stand in
the same position as if the case had never been tried, 15 and they
are returned to where they stood before the court entered its
partial summary judgment.
                  2. Other Assigned Errors
   [13] Our determination that the partial summary judgment
must be reversed and the cause must be remanded for further
proceedings disposes of this appeal. The proceedings that
followed the partial summary judgment, including the formu-
lation of the issues at trial, were premised upon the court’s
interpretation of the lease. Because the court should not have
settled the meaning of the contract regarding minimum rent as
a matter of law, the proceedings that followed were based on
a flawed premise. Brush assigns error to some of the court’s
determinations that followed from the flawed premise, but an
appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is
not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 16
13
     Bierman v. Benjamin, 305 Neb. 860, 943 N.W.2d 269 (2020).
14
     See TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 941
     N.W.2d 145 (2020).
15
     See id.
16
     Estate of Block v. Estate of Becker, 313 Neb. 818, 986 N.W.2d 726 (2023).
                                    - 523 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                   BRUSH & CO. V. W. O. ZANGGER & SON
                           Cite as 314 Neb. 509

   [14] An appellate court may, at its discretion, discuss issues
unnecessary to the disposition of an appeal where those issues
are likely to recur during further proceedings. 17 While it is
possible the other issues raised by Brush may recur, it is not
necessarily likely that they will. Recurrence may depend upon
the ultimate resolution of the factual issue regarding the exis-
tence or nonexistence of a “floor” on minimum rent. Nothing
in this opinion should be read to foreshadow the outcome of
that inquiry.
   And if those other issues recur, it may be upon a more exten-
sive record and in a different procedural posture. We exercise
our discretion and decline to resolve issues unnecessary to the
disposition of the appeal.
                       VI. CONCLUSION
   Because the lease is ambiguous regarding minimum rent, the
district court erred in entering partial summary judgment. We
reverse, and remand for further proceedings.
                                Reversed and remanded for
                                further proceedings.
   Miller-Lerman, J., not participating.
17
     In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271, 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on
     denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389, 966 N.W.2d 268.