Opinion
No. 122842.
October 8, 2003.
Summary Disposition.
No. 122842. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The trial court correctly held that the terms of the oil and gas lease were not ambiguous, but erred in failing to apply the proportionate reduction clause in paragraph 14 of the lease. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In determining the meaning of a contract, a court must "`give effect to every word or phrase as far as practicable.'" Hunter v. Pearl Assurance Co, Ltd, 292 Mich 543, 545 (1940), quoting Mondue v. Lincoln Mut Cas Co, 283 Mich 353, 358-359 (1938). Although the plain language of the lease entitled plaintiff to "$5.00 per acre," this fee must be reduced according to paragraph 14. But there remains a genuine issue of material fact whether the payment made to plaintiff extended the lease. Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331 (1998); Quinto v. Cross Peters Co, 451 Mich 358 (1996). The matter therefore is remanded to the Charlevoix Circuit Court for further proceedings to determine if the payment made to plaintiff was sufficient to extend the lease and, if so, to further determine any additional proportional amount that may be owed by defendants for the lease extension. In all other respects leave to appeal is denied. Court of Appeals No. 225484.