Automatic Renewal

A contract written in clear and unambiguous language is not subject to interpretation or construction; rather, the intent of the parties must be determined from the contents of the contract, and the contract must be enforced as to its terms. McCormack v. Citibank, N.A., 100 F.3d 532 (8th Cir. 1996); Rayman v. American Charter Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, 75 F.3d 349 (8th Cir. 1996); Home Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of Grand Island v. McDermott & Miller 497 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 1993). Thus, otherwise valid leases containing automatic renewal provisions that are clearly set forth therein will likely be enforced. See Jeffrey Lake Development, Inc. v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation District, 568 N.W.2d 585 (Neb. App. 1997); see also Jeffrey Lake Dev. v. Central Neb. Pub. Power, 633 N.W.2d 102 (Neb. 2001); but see Faught v. Platte Valley Public Power & Irrigation Dist., 51 N.W.2d 253, 259 (Neb. 1952) (“a construction conferring a right in perpetuity will be avoided unless compelled by the unequivocal language of the contract, and a contract will not be construed as imposing a perpetual obligation when to do so would be adverse to public interests.”)