Court Opinion

ID: 9883787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:19:16.524136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:30.883068
License: Public Domain

FLEMING, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The majority concludes,
[t]he stipulation here provided that no unrelated resident would take up residence in the home unless one party bought the other party out. No such buy-out occurred. Paragraph VI fails to provide for any other specific consequence in the event of a violation of this clause. We find this provision is unenforceable.
I cannot agree that the clause is unenforceable. The stipulation provided,
It is agreed that no third party shall take up residence in the homestead of the parties unless one party or the other buys the other out pursuant to the right of first refusal herein.
The right of first refusal mentioned in this clause permitted one party, in the event of a sale of the homestead, to “ * * * meet the terms of any acceptable offer within thirty (30) days of the finalization of that offer.” It seems clear to me that no third party was to be allowed to reside in the homestead absent a sale of *288the homestead subject to the other party’s right of first refusal.
Stipulations are binding contracts. Lamb v. Lamb, 404 N.W.2d 338, 340 (Minn.Ct.App.1987). In construing a contract, this court should allow the intent of the parties to prevail. Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 N.W.2d 63, 66 (Minn.1979). In the present case, the parties intended to prohibit third parties from taking up residence in the homestead unless, in the course of selling the homestead, one party bought out the other.
Had appellant married Cole, the homestead would be sold. By allowing him to move in, she is now able to circumvent the parties’ agreement — an agreement drafted by appellant’s counsel and signed by respondent while he was unrepresented. I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the stipulation failed to provide a remedy for this situation. Instead, I believe the stipulation required exactly what the trial court ordered: the sale of the homestead, subject to appellant’s contractual right to buy out respondent’s interest in the sale and allow Cole to remain. Even appellant’s counsel states in his brief to this court, “[A] literal reading of Paragraph VI only indicates that no third party shall take up residence in the homestead unless one party buys the other out.” If the intent of the parties to this contract, as stated by the attorney who drafted the agreement, is to be given effect, this court should affirm the trial court’s decision ordering the sale of the homestead and allow appellant to exercise her right to buy out respondent.