- 4 -
In December 1991, the tribal council informed petitioner in
writing that the entire tract of land leased to him would be
required for "community economic development" (i.e., expansion of
the casino buildings and operations), and that petitioner should
cease all farming operations thereon. The correspondence further
stated that the provisions of petitioner's second lease would
terminate upon petitioner's receipt of such correspondence.
Subsequently, petitioner ceased all farming operations on the
leased land. Under the terms of the lease, the tribal council
reserved the right to terminate the lease as to all or part of
the leased property for "economic development" by advising the
lessee in writing on or before January 1 of the year in which the
premises were required for economic development. In such event,
the lessee was not entitled to compensation for termination of
the lease. The lease provided otherwise where the termination
notice was given after January 1 of the year for which economic
development was contemplated. Nevertheless, a dispute arose
between petitioner and the tribal council regarding the tribal
council's right to terminate the lease and the tribal council's
responsibility to reimburse petitioner for damages incurred by
petitioner as a result of such termination. At the time of the
trial of this case, petitioner's continuing dispute with the
tribal council over this issue was scheduled for legal
arbitration proceedings.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011