Aaa Valley Gravel, Inc., Appellant v. Alicia Totaro and Herman Ramirez, Appellees — Fabe, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would reverse the judgment holding AAA liable for royalties because the lease's silence on exclusivity made it non-exclusive as a matter of law. It reasoned that contract interpretation was a legal question, that silence did not create ambiguity requiring fact-finding, and that AAA's royalty obligation ended when it acquired the property and began mining as owner. The dissent also criticized the court's characterization of the lease as an exclusive profit and its consideration of issues not litigated by the parties.