Daily Development for Monday, August 17, 2009
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
Here are two contract interpretation cases from Utah which demonstrate the importance of good drafting (good lawyering.) Might make good examples for clients who may wonder why we spend so much time making sure everything is right when the parties clearly understand what they’re doing. You don’t always get what you want . . .
CONTRACTS; PAROL EVIDENCE: When a contract term is specifically defined, all contract provisions related to the term will be interpreted according to the stated definition, and where the contract language is unambiguous, parol evidence will not be allowed and the contract will be interpreted as a matter of law.
Café Rio, Inc. v. Larkin-Gifford-Overton, LLC., 207 P.3d 1235 (UT 2009)
Defendant, a landowner in a development in Southern Utah, had executed a cross easement agreement providing common parking and access with its five neighbors.
The Agreement established common areas of open space in the center of the six parcels. These common areas were defined as, in part, "all of the areas of the Parcels ... designed for use as approaches, exits, entrances, and all parking lots, . . . however expressly excluding all buildings (and any building(s) constructed on Parcels 5 and 6 in the future)."
The Agreement also granted each parcel owner the right to an "unobstructed view of any of the Parcels," and it provides a "nonexclusive easement for the parking of motor vehicles . . . for the customers, invitees and employees of all business and occupants of the buildings constructed on. . . any of the Parcels.”
In addition to the express provision of an easement of access and parking, the Agreement also provided that "none of such Common Areas shall be changed in any material respect … without the prior written consent of all Owners of the Parcels." Additionally, the Agreement included a provision entitled "Prohibition of Barriers," which prohibited any parcel owner from constructing or erecting within any of the Parcels, any "fence, wall, barricade, or obstruction, whether temporary or permanent in nature, which materially limits or impairs the free and unimpeded flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic between and among the Parcels or the ability to have an unobstructed view of any of the Parcels."
Defendant began constructing a building on its parcel (Parcel 5). In response, an adjoining landowner and its tenant brought action, claiming that Defendant's building construction violated terms of the Agreement described abover.
Based upon the Agreement language regarding the need for prior consent of all owners prior to changes in the Common Areas and the prohibition of erecting obstructions, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the adjoining landowner and tenant.
On appeal, the trial court's decision was reversed and the case was remanded. The Supreme Court of Utah held that the Agreement definition of "Common Areas" was "clear and unambiguous" since it precisely stated that future buildings on Parcels 5 and 6 were not part of the common areas. As such, the parties placed no limitation on the location of future buildings on those Parcels and implicitly agreed that buildings on Parcels 5 and 6 would not be subject to the restrictions placed on the defined common areas, including the requirement for prior written consent before making material changes and the parking easement.
The court also found that the term "obstruction" did not include buildings. First, the Court reasoned that when provisions of the Agreement were read together, it was clear that the parties contemplated the construction of buildings on Parcels 5 and 6, and made specific provisions in the Agreement in accordance with such intentions. As such, the Court stated that it was plain that the parties did not intend the term "obstruction" to include buildings. Second, the Court reasoned that interpreting "obstruction" to include buildings would eliminate Defendant's ability to construct a building on Parcel 5, which the Court believed was a right explicitly bargained and provided for in the Agreement. Thus, consistent with prior case law, the Court would not interpret the term "obstruction" in a manner that rendered an explicit right meaningless.
Last, using the principle of ejusdem generis, the Court construed "obstruction" according to the specific Agreement enumerations of "fence, wall, [and] barricade," that preceded "obstruction." Consequently, the Court found that a building is not similar in character or purpose to the other listed obstructions.
Comment: What was the intent of the parties at the time of drafting? Clearly the trial court read that intent differently from the appeals court. The problem seems to have arisen from a haphazard use of the term “common areas,” which at some places defines the rights of the parties and at other places does not. The misunderstandings that led to this litigation could have been avoided by better lawyering. An object lesson for as all. We can’t always bury our mistakes.
CONTRACTS; PAROL EVIDENCE: Where a contract is facially unambiguous, parol evidence will not be allowed, even where the contract fails to reflect the true intentions of the parties. Flores v. Earnshaw, 209 P.3d 428 (UT App. 2009)
In 2005, Defendant and Plaintiff entered into an option agreement, followed by a Real Estate Purchase Contract ("REPC"), for a residential condominium unit in a prospective building site. Both agreements listed a purchase price of $144,950. The form of REPC used, intended for use in the purchase and sale of existing real estate, contained a provision regarding "Included Items." The provision specified that items such as plumbing, heating, air conditioning equipment, appliances, and light fixtures, were included in the sale "if presently owned and attached to the Property."
Approximately one month after the binding REPC was executed, Defendant contacted Plaintiff and conveyed that the purchase price of $144,950 had been an error. Defendant subsequently sent an addendum to the REPC to Plaintiff, with an increased purchase price. Plaintiff then filed action for specific performance and breach of contract.
During a bench trial, the trial court found that the REPC was clear and unambiguous as to the price of $144,950, but that the REPC was ambiguous as to whether the parties intended to convey a fully built-out unit or just a shell of a unit. As such, the court allowed the presentation of parol evidence to determine the parties' intent regarding this issue. Both Plaintiff and Defendant testified that their intent was to contract for a fully built-out unit. However, the Defendant testified that he intended to do so for a price of $184,950, but that either he or his secretary had mistakenly written a price of $144,950. Based upon such testimony, the trial court ordered Defendant to sell a fully built-out unit to Plaintiff for the purchase price of $144,950. Defendant appealed.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's holding. The court found that the trial court erred when it allowed parol evidence to determine the intent of the parties. The court explained that admission of parol evidence to determine intent is allowed only if there is a finding of facial ambiguity. Otherwise, "the parties' intentions must be determined solely from the language of the contract." Furthermore, the court stated that this rule applies even where poor drafting exists and that "contractual confusion" does not necessarily equate to a finding of ambiguity.
Based upon the language of the REPC, the court found that the "Included Items" clause of the REPC was not ambiguous. The court noted that neither party offered different versions of the language used in the clause and that there did not appear to be a dispute over the fact that the term "presently" referred to the date of execution of the REPC. As such, because the unit had not yet been constructed on the date of execution of the REPC, there was no ambiguity that the listed "Included Items" were not then "owned and attached to the Property." Thus, based upon the plain language of the REPC, the court concluded that the parties intended for the sale of only a "shell" of a unit for the purchase price of $144,950.
Comment 1: In this case, both parties agreed that it was their intention at the time of executing the REPC, to convey a fully built-out condominium unit. However, the standard REPC form that the parties used included language that was not appropriate for a transaction involving yet-to-be-built property. Since the REPC language was unambiguous, even though it may not have been appropriate to the transaction, the court was forced to rely on the sole language of the REPC.
Comment 2: The editor suspects that in this case neither side was represented by counsel. It is often the case that brokers are permitted to supply form agreements in common use in residential transactions, even though they are not permitted (by rules governing practicing law without a license) to draft documents. The editor has seen problems arising from the selection of an inappropriate form document many times. It is an interesting question whether the broker should held to the standard of the ordinary skill of a lawyers in the selection of form documents. If so, and if there were brokers involved here, someone has a malpractice claim. In fact, both parties might.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor or
individual contributors and are in no sense the
publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
DIRT Developments are posted periodically, as supply dictates.
To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, any substitute reporters, DIRT, and its sponsors.
All DIRT Developments, and scores of other cases, arranged topically, are reported in hardcopy form in the ABA Quarterly Report. This is a limited subscription service, available to ABA Section Members, AMCA members and members of the NAR. Qualified subscribers may Subscribe to this Report ($30 for Two Years) by Sending a Check to Ms. Bunny Lee, ABA Section on Real Property, Trust & Estate Law, 321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Il 60610. Contact Bunny Lee at (312) 988-5651, Leeb@staff.abanet.org Aba Members Also Can Access Prior and Current Editions of this Report on the Aba Rpte Section Website.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/
*************************************