Court Opinion

ID: 9516558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:45:16.76567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:35.132057
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion. Although I can agree that a strict interpretation of the settlement agreement could lead to a conclusion that Johanneson and Olson had only two opportunities to submit minerals for evaluation, I cannot agree that the appraiser fulfilled his obligations in this instance.
It is true that the settlement agreement provides, at paragraph 7 thereof, that the parties “agree the fair market value determined by the appraiser shall not be challenged by any of them on any basis.” However, I believe that paragraph must be construed to mean that the appraiser would make a fair market appraisal of the mineral acres. The record reveals that out of some 590 mineral acres submitted by Johanneson and Olson 373 of them were in Saskatchewan, Canada. The appraiser’s report stated with respect to those minerals: “Based on the initial review of very limited data, there appears to be some question as to the amount and type of acreage that is being suggested for conveyance. Due to the potential problems with lack of control, taxes, trustees fees, uncertain marketability, etc., the Canadian acreage is given only a nominal value for the minimum estimate.” The parties contemplated that some of the minerals submitted would be in Canada. Presumably all Canadian minerals would be subject to the problems set forth by the appraiser and I cannot believe that all Canadian minerals have only “nominal” market value. Nor can I conclude from the face of the settlement agreement that the parties intended that Canadian mineral interests would be submitted but would be given only a “nominal value,” despite the provision in the settlement agreement that the fair market value determined by the appraiser would not be challenged by the parties. I believe that agreement must be interpreted to mean that the appraiser would attempt to place a fair market value on the minerals despite any “potential prob*807lems.” At best, the settlement agreement is ambiguous in this regard.
In Thomas C. Roel Associates, Inc. v. Henrikson, 295 N.W.2d 136 (N.D.1980), cited in the majority opinion, we held that where there were ambiguities in the settlement agreement an evidentiary hearing should have been held to determine the intent of the parties at the time the agreement was entered into. Because I believe the settlement agreement is ambiguous, at least in the manner in which it was applied in this instance, I Would reverse the judgment and remand for an evidentiary hearing concerning the valuation of the Canadian minerals by the appraiser.