In this instance, the release language of the agreement is apparently clear. The circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement suggest two reasonable meanings. Appellants' App. at 158. Because the agreement is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, it is ambiguous. Moreover, the determination of the agreement's scope is a question of fact which cannot be resolved on this record.
Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. National Enterprises was substituted as a party and the RTC was dismissed on September 14, 1995. Penteco Corp. Ltd. Partnership v. Union Gas Sys. Although the logic underlying the New Rock determination may have merit, this court has not considered or adopted this exception to the time of filing rule. In the district court, defendants also claimed that they were entitled to summary judgment because National Enterprises does not have the original note in its possession and the note lacks proper endorsement.