01-2068 Goldstein and Park Family Limited Partnership v. Lindner, et al.

By: dmc-admin//April 15, 2002//

Listen to this article

“By the Lindsay assignment’s terms, the Ehrenbergs intended to convey either royalties, contractual interests, or both, to Lindsay. However, nothing suggests that the Ehrenbergs also intended to give up their reversionary interest in the 1975 mining lease. The first time that reversion is found in the chain of title is when the Ehrenbergs conveyed their reversion to Lindsay in the option agreement…. We conclude that there is no material ambiguity in the Lindsay agreement. Lindsay and his assignees did not acquire a one-half interest in the Ehrenbergs’ reversionary interest in the 1975 mining lease.”

Plaintiff’s claim that the lease had been terminated is similarly unavailing.

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Forest County, Heath, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Francis R. Croak, Milwaukee; Michael J. Lund, Milwaukee; Steven L. Nelson, Milwaukee

For Respondent: William A. Schroeder III, Rhinelander

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event