Fordel v. City of Mendota

Filed 6/22/06 Fordel v. City of Mendota CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mark W. Snauffer, Judge.

Jory, Peterson, Watkins, Ross & Woolman, John E. Peterson and Jason C. Parkin for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dowling, Aaron & Keeler, David J. Weiland, Lynne Thaxter Brown and Benjamin E. Hall for Defendant and Respondent.

oo0oo

Respondent, the City of Mendota (City), leased city property to appellant, Fordel, Inc. (Fordel), for the purpose of installing and operating a well. The lease provided that the City could terminate the lease if the city engineer determined that the well was adversely affecting the quality or quantity of the City's municipal water system based on certain criteria.

The crux of this appeal is the interpretation of this early termination provision. The City argued that it could terminate the lease if Fordel's well was a cause of the specified water degradation whereas Fordel argued that its well had to be the sole cause. The trial court agreed with the City.

Fordel argues the trial court erred when it found the termination clause ambiguous and thereafter interpreted the clause in favor of the City. Fordel also contends that the City should be estopped from pursuing its interpretation of this lease provision. As discussed below, the record supports the trial court's ruling. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.

BACKGROUND

The water well lease was executed by the City and Fordel on October 2, 1989, for a term of 25 years. However, the City had the right to terminate the lease early â€