Opinion ID: 789371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpreting Ambiguities in Court Orders

Text: 31 Court orders are construed like other written instruments, except that the determining factor is not the intent of the parties, but that of the issuing court. See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 286 (3d Cir.1991) (stating that court's responsibility is to construe a judgment as to give effect to the intention of the court, not to that of the parties (quoting United States v. 60.22 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Klickitat County, 638 F.2d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir.1980))); see also In re 85-02 Queens Boulevard Assocs., 212 B.R. 451, 455 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1997) (citing 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 94 (West 1994)). As a general matter, a court decree or judgment is to be construed with reference to the issues it was meant to decide. Mayor & Aldermen of City of Vicksburg v. Henson, 231 U.S. 259, 269, 34 S.Ct. 95, 58 L.Ed. 209 (1913). Thus, an order will not be construed as going beyond the motion in pursuance of which the order was made, for a court is presumed not to intend to grant relief which was not demanded. Harrigan v. Mason & Winograd, Inc., 121 R.I. 209, 213, 397 A.2d 514, 516 (R.I.1979)(internal citations omitted); see Prouty v. Clayton County, 264 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1978); 56 Am.Jur.2d Motions § 48 (West 2004). 32 Although [c]ourt orders `must ordinarily be interpreted by examination of only the four corners of the document,' Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d at 286) (quoting United States v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc., 662 F.2d 955, 961 (3d Cir.1981)), where, as in this case, an ambiguity in terminology results in a lack of clarity as to the scope of the ruling, a reviewing court may properly examine `the entire record for the purpose of determining what was decided,' id. (quoting Security Mut. Cas. Co. v. Century Cas., Co., 621 F.2d 1062, 1064 (10th Cir.1980)); see also United States v. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 643 F.2d 644, 651 (9th Cir.1981) (While the district court is bound to construe the judgment by the meaning to be found within its `four corners,' the court may also consider the surrounding circumstances at formation as aids in construing the judgment. (internal citation omitted)); Eaton v. Courtaulds of N. Am., Inc., 578 F.2d 87, 91 (5th Cir.1978) (Where ambiguities exist in the language of a consent decree, the court may turn to other `aids of construction,' such as other documents to which the consent decree refers, as well as legal materials setting the context for the use of particular terms.); Capetan v. Brownell, 148 F.Supp. 519, 520 (E.D.N.Y.1957) (In construing orders and judgments, the entire contents of the instrument and the record should be taken into consideration in ascertaining the intent.) (citing Smith v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 67 F.2d 167 (4th Cir.1933))).