Court Opinion

ID: 9792282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:26:34.852712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:41.637431
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice, Retired,
dissenting.
I also believe the agreement is unambiguous. It provides that the grantee will retain the easement as long as “Grantee shall * * * require the road * * ⅜ to transport material.” That is a fair reading of the parties’ agreement. It is the only one that is grounded in common sense. When material is no longer being transported, the road is not required “to transport material”; and if that situation continues for twelve months, the easement terminates.
Both the majority of this court and this dissenting justice, however, find the agreement unambiguous. Each concludes its meaning to be totally contrary to the other’s position. Perhaps, then, this is a classic case of an ambiguous agreement. If so, then the court must ascertain the intent of the parties to arrive at a correct disposition of the ease. The easement will never terminate under the opinion as now written by the court, for appellant only need claim that it needs the easement to transport material and never thereafter transport material. It boggles the mind that the court can conclude that this is what the parties intended when they made their agreement. At a minimum, the summary judgment should be reversed and evidence taken to ascertain the parties’ intent.