Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, The Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Golden, Justice
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, BURKE, JJ.
[¶1] During litigation among Lamar Outdoor Advertising (Lamar), Farmers Co-Op Oil Company of Sheridan, Wyoming (Farmers), and Maverik Country Stores (Maverik)*fn1 concerning Lamar's claim that the other parties had not honored Lamar's lease-based right of first refusal that provided Lamar the opportunity to purchase certain property upon which Lamar maintained an advertising sign, the parties executed a settlement agreement, the meaning of one provision of which is now before us in this appeal. Lamar appeals the district court's summary judgment order that under the terms of the parties' unambiguous settlement agreement the City of Sheridan had failed to act on Lamar's variance application within eight weeks from the date the variance application was submitted and, consequently, the parties remained bound by the terms of their settlement agreement. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court's order.
[¶2] Lamar states these issues:
1. Whether the district court erred by misinterpreting the plain and unambiguous language of a conditional settlement agreement between the parties to this litigation.
2. Whether the language in the parties' agreement was ambiguous and requires additional factual findings regarding the circumstances surrounding the agreement.
Farmers and Maverik jointly state this issue:
Whether the trial court properly enforced the settlement agreement of the parties, dismissing the case and ordering Lamar to remove its billboard sign?
[¶3] In Lamar's reply brief, it states these new issues were raised in its opponents' brief:
1. Whether the governing standard of review requires this Court to accept all allegations of the prevailing party below as true.
2. Whether reading the terms of the settlement agreement with their plain meaning renders portions of the agreement meaningless.
3. Whether the record supports the conclusion that an affidavit of notice was not required in order to ...