This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Howells previously owned the land where lake lots are located. The Howells began to lease lots to people who wanted lake property. There were forty-three total lots. The Howells and their tenants executed written lease agreements for each of the lots. The leases can be classified into three categories: (1) leases that expressly provided that they were 'indefinite'; (2) leases with no express end date; and (3) leases with fixed termination dates. After the Howells died, Howells' daughter, Carolyn Howell, assumed control of the properties. She continued to administer the lots until her death in 2007. Control then passed to Carolyn's brother, Rex Howell. Rex conveyed the lots to D in January 2008. P sent new leases to the tenants proposing new lease terms including thirty-day termination provisions and higher lease payments. P took the position that the leases signed by the tenants and the Howells were tenancies at will. Ps instituted the underlying action to establish that their original leases were long-term leases as a result of written and verbal agreements that they had made with the Howells. The trial court determined that the use of the word 'indefinite' to define the end date of the leases' duration was ambiguous as a matter of law. The trial court considered the oral testimony and documentary evidence submitted by Ps to the effect that they and the Howells intended to create long-term leases by the use of the term 'indefinite.' They presented evidence of how the lots were cleared the improvements constructed. The trial court ultimately interpreted the duration of the Indefinite Term Leases to be ninety-nine years from the date when they were entered. Both parties appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.