Court Opinion

ID: 9809376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:10:36.591959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:43.873219
License: Public Domain

*323VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
[¶ 49] I concur in part III D of the majority opinion. I dissent to part III A and B.
[¶ 50] The majority opinion concludes that except for the Faro deed, the deeds are unambiguous and reverses the trial court’s summary judgment for the EOG parties and orders summary judgment for Soo Line and G-4 parties. The dissent appears to conclude the deeds are ambiguous based on the facts cited in the dissenting opinion. I agree with the majority that the Faro deed is ambiguous and summary judgment for EOG on that deed should be reversed. I disagree with the majority that the other deeds are unambiguous. The dissent also disagrees and relies on facts outside of the deeds.
[¶ 51] Justice Sand, writing for the Court, stated that “[a]n ambiguity exists when good arguments can be made for either of several contrary positions as to the meaning of a term.” Kruger v. So-reide, 246 N.W.2d 764, 768 (N.D.1976). I believe both the majority and dissent make good arguments for the construction of the deeds in question. Therefore I conclude they are ambiguous and that summary judgment for any of the parties was improper. I would reverse and remand for trial. On remand, the trial court would be able to consider the facts and analysis of both the majority and dissenting opinions as well as any other admissible facts the parties may offer into evidence.
[¶ 52] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J.