Title: Shadrick v. Johnston
Citation: 581 So. 2d 805
Docket Number: 1900062
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 24, 1991

581 So. 2d 805 (1991)
Billy P. SHADRICK, et al.
v.
S. David JOHNSTON, et al.
1900062.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 19, 1991.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 24, 1991.
*806 Tennent Lee III of Burr &amp; Forman, Huntsville, for appellants.
Gary C. Huckaby, G. Rick Hall and H. Knox McMillan of Bradley, Arant, Rose &amp; White, Huntsville, for appellees.
SHORES, Justice.
This case involves the sale of stock in Dalcor Properties, Inc., the general partner in over 50 limited partnerships. Billy P. Shadrick and Oren J. Heffner (hereinafter "the buyers") entered into an agreement for the sale of Dalcor Properties, Inc., with S. David Johnston, Gary D. Joyce, and Danny L. Wiginton (hereinafter "the sellers"). The buyers claim that the agreement is ambiguous as to the purchase price.
Paragraph 3 of the agreement and its 10 subparts specify 10 different sums, which, when added together, equal the purchase price of the Dalcor stock. Paragraphs 3A through 3E require the payment of a certain percentage of proceeds derived from properties owned by Dalcor. Paragraph 3F requires the payment of fees and profits received up to December 31, 1984, on some of the projects previously listed in the contract, as well as a sum equal to the annual general partner fees, cash flow, and investor service fees on all projects described in subparagraphs A, C, D, and E.
Paragraph 3 reads as follows:
Paragraph 3F is the source of the parties' disagreement.
The buyers allege that paragraph 3F is ambiguous because it sets out the amount to be paid in a manner different from paragraphs 3A through 3E. The buyers also allege that 3F is inconsistent because *810 it requires the payment of fees and profits derived from some of the same sources mentioned in other preceding paragraphs. The sellers allege that the contract entitles them not only to the sum of the fees in 3F, but also to the sum of the percentages of profits specified in paragraphs 3A through 3J.
This dispute was brought to the court's attention by First Alabama Bank of Huntsville, which, by agreement of the parties, was to act as the escrow agent. As the agreement stated, the bank received the stock certificates from the sellers. When the parties disagreed as to whether the purchase price had been paid by the buyers, the bank filed an interpleader action, listing all persons involved in the agreement. The court discharged the bank from the action and from any liability. The bank delivered the stock certificates to the clerk of the court for safekeeping.
By order of the court, the sellers became the plaintiffs and the buyers became the defendants. The sellers' complaint alleged that the buyers were in default of the original agreement for failure to pay the agreed-upon purchase price and that as a result of the default the agreement was void. The buyers alleged that they were not in default and that the sellers' actions amounted to anticipatory repudiation or breach of the agreement. The buyers asked the court to reform the allegedly ambiguous purchase price. The trial court found no ambiguity in paragraph 3F and granted the sellers a summary judgment. The buyers appealed.
Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. P &amp; S Business, Inc. v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 466 So. 2d 928 (Ala.1985). If the meaning of the contract can be discerned through a plain reading, the court will not twist the language in order to create ambiguities. ERA Commander Realty, Inc. v. Harrigan, 514 So. 2d 1329 (Ala.1987). The court will give a natural meaning to the words in a contract so that all provisions of the contract are given a reasonable interpretation. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Terra Resources, Inc., 373 So. 2d 314 (Ala. 1979). We agree with the trial court that there is no ambiguity in this contract. The inclusion of paragraphs 3A through 3E in addition to paragraph 3F indicates that the purchase price was intended to be the sum of all the paragraphs, 3A through 3J.
The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.