Court Opinion

ID: 9659977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:59:55.703246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:13.559037
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Chief Justice
(concurring in result).
[¶ 35.] Although I agree with the bottom line of the majority opinion, I write specially to express my disagreement with the holding of the arbitration panel, the circuit court, and the majority, as it relates to the claimed violation of the lease. I am of the view that the one incident of baiting did NOT amount to a violation or breach of the “legal purpose” provision of the lease. The stated purpose of the lease was for both agricultural and hunting uses; both of those are clearly legal purposes. The fact that on one occasion there was a misdemeanor baiting incident, does not amount to a violation of the legal purposes of the lease.
[¶ 36.] Legal precedent fully supports my position. Restatement (Second) of Property § 12.5 cmt. e (1976) states:
The leased property is not used for an illegal purpose merely because an illegal act is committed on the leased property. The use of the leased property for an illegal purpose connotes continuing illegal conduct being carried on with the leased property being used as the base of operations. The necessary continuity'may be present though the illegal action may take place only periodically.
See also Murphy v. Traynor, 110 Colo. 466, 135 P.2d 230, 232 (1943); FCA Properties v. Hudson Oil Co. of the United States, Inc., 35 Mich.App. 79, 192 N.W.2d 390 (1971); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Burdo, 69 Misc.2d 153, 329 N.Y.S.2d 742, 749 (1972) (citation omitted); 190 Stanton Inc. v. Santiago, 60 Misc.2d 224, 302 N.Y.S.2d 693, 695 (1969) (citation omitted).
[¶ 37.] Additionally, while I may disagree with this Court’s earlier holdings in American Legion and Skillman, I see no need to specifically overrule them, as the majority does in ¶ 24.
[¶ 38.] I am authorized to state that Justice AMUNDSON joins in this special writing.