Court Opinion

ID: 9600744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:30:54.519875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:17.224495
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting:
I would affirm the trial court’s ruling in its entirety. I find the language of paragraph X of the Farmout Agreement to be sufficiently unambiguous to warrant granting judgment for Pioneer. It may be true that the extrinsic evidence points to a conflict in interpretations, at least when the affidavit of the An-schutz official is considered. However, extrinsic evidence is not to be resorted to until we have first found ambiguity. Plateau Mining Co. v. Utah Div. of State Lands & Forestry, 802 P.2d 720, 725 (Utah 1990). I find none.
The words “agree to adopt, ratify and confirm” in paragraph X seem plainly to contemplate a separate writing, which was never executed. If the agreement meant what plaintiffs contend it means, it would have said, “[W]e hereby adopt, ratify and confirm. ...” It does not say that, and I cannot see how it can even arguably be read to say that.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the court below.