Summary 2010 WY 105

Summary of Decision issued July 30, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Scherer, II v. Laramie Regional Airport Board

Citation: 2010 WY 105

Docket Number: S-09-0196

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge.

Representing Scherer: Theodore C. Preston of Prehoda, Leonard & Edwards, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Laramie Regional Airport Board: Matthew F.G. Castano of Brown & Hiser LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Scherer appealed the judgment of the district court, entered after an unreported bench trial, that awarded Laramie Regional Airport Board (Board) $88,112.97 on its complaint that Scherer had breached paragraph 19 of the parties’ lease agreement which required Scherer to “keep the leased premises and adjacent area clean, orderly, and free of accumulated trash at his own expense.”
Scherer purchased a Quonset hut from the Board in the mid-1980’s. The parties executed a 20-year lease of the land underlying the hut located on Brees Field Airport near Laramie. Scherer used the hut as storage after operating an air freight business on the property. The lease expired in 2005 and according to the lease Scherer was to remove the hut at his own expense within 60 days of the expiration of the lease. He did not do so and neither did the Board until 2007. The Board filed a complaint against Scherer for the cost of restoring the leased property.
Scherer contended the district court’s interpretation created a conflict between paragraph 10 and 19. Scherer argued that he bore the expense of removal under only two scenarios: if he removed the hut within 60 days after the lease expired or if the Board removed the hut within 60 days after he failed to remove the hut. Because neither he nor the Board removed the hut within those specific timeframes, he must not bear the expense. Secondly, Scherer argued that the district court’s judgment was based on a factual error that restoration of the leased premises to its pre-lease condition required demolition of the hut. It was undisputed that the hut was present on the lease premises before the lease was executed. He argued that logically the hut’s demolition would not restore the leased premises to its pre-lease condition.
The district court stated that Scherer could do as he pleased with the hut during the lease. The lease contemplated potential transfer of the hut to the Board at the expiration of the lease, therefore the provision requiring him to keep the hut clean, orderly, and free of accumulated trash was reasonable and prudent. The lease provided protection to the Board against Scherer trashing the hut and then handing ownership of it to the Board by failing to remove it within the 60 day time period.

Conclusion: As the Court construed the lease, paragraphs 10 and 19 were unambiguous and clearly not in conflict. The Court’s construction of the lease between the Board and Scherer achieves, as did the district court’s construction, the objective of finding a reasonable construction which does not render meaningless any provision of the lease. The lease terms are unambiguous and paragraphs 10 and 19 are reconcilable as each provision serves a distinct purpose. The construction considered the lease as a whole keeping in mind the parties’ situation when the lease was executed, its subject matter, and the purposes of its execution.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/27fmxbh .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]