Crisler v. Crisler


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-00933-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-28-2007
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Interpretation of property settlement agreement
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J, LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-29-2005
Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court
Judge: William H. Singletary
Disposition: GRANTED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE ON A CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE RELATED TO A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
Case Number: G 1999-1422 (S/2)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: ALFRED N. CRISLER




J. PEYTON RANDOLPH



 

Appellee: ADELE RAWLS CRISLER MICHAEL HARTUNG  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Interpretation of property settlement agreement

Summary of the Facts: Following the divorce of Alfred and Adele Crisler in 1999, a dispute arose as to the interpretation of a paragraph within the parties’ property settlement agreement pertaining to the sale of property and the distribution of the proceeds. Mr. Crisler took the stance that, in accordance with his interpretation of the property settlement agreement, he was under no duty to give Mrs. Crisler her share of the proceeds until the entire property was sold, while Mrs. Crisler argued she was entitled to compensation after each partial sale. The court held in favor of Mrs. Crisler, and Mr. Crisler appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The parties’ disagreement stems from their separate interpretations of the following portion of the agreement: “[u]pon sale of the Airport Road Property, consisting of 42.89 acres, Al [Mr. Crisler] shall pay Dell [Mrs. Crisler] $300,000.00 of the net proceeds of the sale . . . .” Mr. Crisler claims that the clause only requires him to pay Mrs. Crisler her portion of the proceeds upon the completed sale of the entire 42.89 acre property. Mrs. Crisler disagrees and argues that Mr. Crisler is required to divide the proceeds upon each and every partial sale of the property. Mr. Crisler argues that the chancellor erred in finding the clause to be ambiguous. Ambiguity arises when a reasonable person could have understood the terms of a contract to have more than one reasonable meaning. In this case, this portion of the agreement is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation about whether Mr. Crisler’s duty to pay Mrs. Crisler her portion of the proceeds only arises upon sale of the entire property or upon each partial sale of the land. Thus, it is ambiguous. The parties’ intent regarding when Mrs. Crisler is entitled to sale proceeds must be determined. While a reading of the entire Agreement does not shed any light upon the parties’ intent, the parties’ actions upon the first partial sale of the Airport Road Property demonstrates the collective intent of Mr. and Mrs. Crisler. Mr. Crisler’s partial sale of 6.36 acres, and subsequent payment of $50,000 from the proceeds of this sale to Mrs. Crisler, indicates that Mr. Crisler’s understanding of the agreement between the parties was that Mrs. Crisler was to be paid upon each partial sale. This is also evident in a letter sent by Mr. Crisler soon after the Agreement was signed. Mr. Crisler also argues that Mrs. Crisler is entitled to the greater amount of either $300,000 or 50% of the net proceeds if the property sold for more than $1.50 per square foot, whichever is greater. The language of the clause, as it pertains to the distribution of proceeds, is clear. Mrs. Crisler is to receive $300,000 upon sale of the property at the appraised value of $1.50 per square foot. In addition, if the property sells for more than $1.50 per square foot, she and Mr. Crisler shall equally divide the proceeds in excess of $1.50 per square foot. Had the parties wished to restrict Mrs. Crisler’s share to whichever amount was greater they could have added such language as they did in the very next paragraph of the Agreement.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court