and conveyed” advanced by SMC is not wholly unprecedented, as the trial court here concluded, and indeed finds some support in the terms of the deed construed as a whole. The covenants and conditions designed to maintain a high-end residential development, coupled with the absence of similar restrictions on land retained by the resort, could reasonably suggest that the parties did not intend to restrict development of land under the ownership or control of MMC. Therefore, the parties may not have intended to include transfers of resort property lacking any real change in ownership or control within the meaning of “sold and conveyed.” Since the deed language is reasonably susceptible of more than one mean ing, it must be considered ambiguous. See Kipp, 169 Vt. at 107, 732 A.2d at 131 (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary,
holding that a court applying louisiana law should interpret a policy according to its plain meaning and not distort its meaning to introduce an ambiguity holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim holding that ambiguity will be found where writing viewed in its entirety fairly admits of more than one meaning holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured holding the record viewed in its entirety does not support the aljs finding that allen had no nonexertional impairments