Opinion ID: 2320890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Interpretation of Budgetary Constraints

Text: The petitioners' final arguments concern the trial court's consideration of the respondents' budgetary constraints. The petitioners argue that the trial court erred by interpreting the Stipulation as follows: [T]he Court finds the language in the Stipulation to mean that rate increases at IDDI would be funded by [DDS] and Region 10 to the extent that these agencies could reasonably secure additional funding within a system constrained by a limited budget. The petitioners argue that there is nothing in the Stipulation that limits the respondents' funding to amounts that they can reasonably secure under a limited budget; thus the trial court improperly added the within a system constrained by a limited budget language to its interpretation. Further, the petitioners argue that the trial court erred by interpreting the stipulation to mean that the respondents could balance Robin's needs against the needs of other disabled people receiving funds from the respondents. These misinterpretations by the trial court reduced the respondents' obligations under the Stipulation, the petitioners argue. As stated above, the interpretation of a contract is a question of law, which we review de novo. Barclay Square Condo. Owners' Assoc., 153 N.H. at 517, 899 A.2d 991. The Stipulation provides that, if IDDI increases its rates, the respondents agree to use their best reasonable efforts to secure additional funding to cover any IDDI rate increase consistent with He-M 503 . . . . We disagree with the petitioners' suggested interpretation of the Stipulation. There is no language in the Stipulation requiring the respondents to either ignore the amount of funding that they have in their budget or to deprive other disabled patients of funds if the funding for Robin falls short due to a rate increase at IDDI. Further, if the intent of the parties were to ignore the limits of the respondents' funding and the needs of other disabled patients, the Stipulation would have simply required the respondents to pay all increases of IDDI's rates, without consideration of their best efforts. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court's interpretation of the Stipulation.