BLTC-9e Case Problem with Sample Answer
Chapter 9: Nature and Classification
9.5 Case Problem with Sample Answer
Lisa and Darrell Miller married in 1983 and had two children, Landon and Spencer. The Millers divorced in 2003 and entered into a “Joint Custody Implementation Plan” (JCIP). Under the JCIP, Darrell agreed to “begin setting funds aside for the minor children to attend post-secondary education necessary to pay tuition, books, supplies, and room and board not to exceed four (4) years.” After Landon’s eighteenth birthday, Darrell filed a petition in a Louisiana state court to reduce the amount of the child support that he was paying to Lisa. In response, she asked the court to order Darrell to pay the boys’ college expenses but offered no evidence to support the request. Darrell contended that the JCIP was not clear on this point. Do the rules of contract interpretation, applied to the phrasing of the Millers’ JCIP, support Lisa’s request or Darrell’s contention? Explain. [Miller v. Miller, 1 So.3d 815 (La.App. 2009)]
Sample Answer:
A court is bound to give effect to a contract according to the intent of the parties at the time that they entered into it. This intent is determined by the parties’ expressions—the words of the contract—and their plain, ordinary meaning. A contract is ambiguous if the intent of the parties cannot be determined from its language, if it lacks a provision on a disputed issue, if a term is susceptible to more than one interpretation, or if there is uncertainty about a provision. If a contract is ambiguous, outside evidence may be considered, or an ambiguity will be interpreted against the party who drafted it or who asserts it. A divorce settlement is a contract. In this problem, the type of college expenses that the Millers anticipated are specified in the JCIP, as is the length of the obligation. But there is ambiguity in the phrasing. When was Darrell to “begin setting funds aside?” How much was he to set aside? Where was he to deposit or invest the funds? Was he to be responsible for the entire cost of the children’s post-secondary education? In other words, what exactly did the parties intend? The provision is ambiguous. Lisa, however, did not offer any evidence to support her asserted interpretation of the provision. Without such evidence, the ambiguity should be interpreted in favor of Darrell. In this case, the court ordered Darrell to pay, but on appeal, a state intermediate appellate court reversed the order.