Court Opinion

ID: 9657659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:33:37.666376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:47.331702
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that “any” is an “expansive” adjective that in this context means “unmeasured, or unlimited in amount, quantity, number, time, or extent.” In my opinion, the majority doesn’t recognize this ordinary sense of that word soon enough in its analysis. “The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense-” NDCC 9-07-09. I believe this ordinary meaning controls the unambiguous meaning of Paragraph 24. For that reason, I disagree with the majority’s analysis, and dissent.
NDCC 9-07-03 says: “For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties to a contract, if othei"wise doubtful, the rules given in this chapter are to be applied.” (My emphasis). We should not invoke other interpretive rules unless Paragraph 24 is am*495biguous. Because I believe “the intention of the parties [can] be ascertained from the writing alone,” NDCC 9-07-04, we should not be examining “circumstances” or “things covered” under NDCC 9-07-12 and 9-07-13 to clarify an ambiguity that doesn’t exist. “[SJpeeial assessments connected with the construction of Twelfth Street” plainly means Special Assessment Project No. 2-3-89 promoted for Meide’s development.
Here, Meide agreed to indemnify South Park for “any special assessments ... connected with the construction of Twelfth Street.” (My emphasis). Aside from the irrelevant ambiguity in renaming part of Twelfth Street as Thirteenth Street, which all agree is immaterial, there is no ambiguity. In this context, “any” means all assessments that benefit the Seller and Tenant, “unlimited in amount, quantity, number, time, or extent.”
A single street improvement project took place. The Director of Public Works for the City of Wahpeton swore:
Project No. 2-3-89 for the City of Wahpe-ton completed street paving, sewer and water, and the extension of Twelfth Street over the Red River and Western Railroad. The spread sheet designating the assessments made to real property owned by South Park Associates, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership for improvements made under Project No. 2-3-89, is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
No separate special assessment districts were created. Under NDCC 40-23-07, for example, a special assessment commission “shall assess against each of such lots and parcels of land such sum, not exceeding the benefits, as shall be necessary to pay its just proportion of the total cost of such work, or of the part thereof which is to be paid by special assessment....” Meide agreed to pay “any special assessments or other costs connected with the construction of Twelfth Street_” against South Park’s property.
Thus, in my view, Paragraph 24 is unambiguous. There are no cross-references between Paragraph 20 and Paragraph 24 of this contract. The street-vacation condition in Paragraph 20(a) is entirely different from the street construction contemplated in Paragraph 24. The general development contemplated in Paragraph 20(b) did not take place as planned, but a different development by Meide did. Nor did 20(b) on “development” describe “construction of Twelfth Street,” the separate and specific subject of the indemnity agreement in Paragraph 24. No exhibit was referenced in Paragraph 24. We should not write terms into a clear part of an agreement that the contracting parties didn’t put there.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that “[t]he evident purpose of Paragraph 24 was to place on Meide, ... the expense of constructing a street benefiting Meide’s property.” (My emphasis). Benefit to Meide is immaterial. The purpose was exactly the opposite; without regard to benefiting Meide, he was to save South Park harmless from its assessed share of “any” municipal improvement “connected with” Meide’s “development.” This was a consideration for the sale to Meide of the sold parcel, additional to the cash price of $50,403.16. I see no limitation in Paragraph 24, which means Meide took the risk of “any” improvements that benefited South Park’s remaining property “connected with the construction of Twelfth Street.” Physically, all of the improvements to Twelfth Street “connected with” the part grudgingly conceded by Meide.
Paragraph 24 does not say pay for “that part of Twelfth Street marked on Exhibit D,” or “the part between (a) and (b).” In my opinion, the majority opinion, like the trial court, wrongly concludes the contract is ambiguous, and then rewrites it. The language in Paragraph 24 is unlimited, but the majority’s interpretation narrows and constricts it to what someone else “would have” intended if they had made the deal.
I would reverse and direct entry of judgment for South Park against Meide for the entire $51,340.67 in special assessments “connected with the construction of Twelfth Street” for the singular special assessment project, no matter the extent, the nature, or the number of the assessments thereby “connected.” Therefore, I respectfully dissent.