Opinion ID: 1805152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ambiguity of the ATM Lease

Text: This controversy circulates around the language in the exclusive-use provision of the ATM lease, which states, in pertinent part, that [SouthTrust] shall have the exclusive right during the term of this lease and any renewals to operate an ATM or any other type of banking facility on the Property. (Emphasis added.) SouthTrust argues that the trial court erred in holding that the ATM lease is ambiguous and thus that it must be construed against SouthTrust, as the drafter of the ATM lease. According to SouthTrust, the language in the exclusive-use provision is clear and it gives SouthTrust the sole right to operate a bank at Smiths Station Plaza during the period the ATM lease is in effect. In briefs submitted to this Court, the parties focus on the term banking facility as that term is used in the ATM lease. [2] SouthTrust argues that the meaning of that term is clear and unambiguous; Copeland One and PGB argue that it is ambiguous. The ATM lease does not define the term banking facility, but, as SouthTrust correctly points out, an inherent ambiguity is not created merely by the use in a document of an undefined word. See Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 817 So.2d 687, 692 (Ala.2001). The term banking facility as used in the ATM lease should be given its ordinary, plain, and natural meaning. See Winkleblack, 811 So.2d at 527 (quoting Homes of Legend, Inc. v. McCollough, 776 So.2d 741, 746 (Ala.2000)). We agree with SouthTrust that the term banking facility as used in the ATM lease should be interpreted to mean any type of building or structure from which banking operations are conducted. (SouthTrust's brief at 17.) The branch bank building located at Smiths Station Plaza is clearly included within this definition. We do not find that the ATM lease is ambiguous based on the use of the term banking facility; rather, we find that the use of the word or is the cause of the ambiguity. [3] ` Every use of and or or as a conjunction involves some risk of ambiguity.' Maurice B. Kirk, Legal Drafting: The Ambiguity of `And' and `Or, ' 2 Texas Tech L.Rev. 235, 253 (1971)(emphasis in original). Thus, in the main text of Words and Phrases (1953)  excluding pocket parts  the word `and' takes up 61 pages of digested cases interpreting it in myriad ways, and the word `or' takes up another 84 pages of digested cases interpreting it in an equally broad array of senses. Virtually every book on drafting legal documents contains a section on the ambiguity of the two words. Authorities agree ... that or has an inclusive as well as an exclusive sense. Hence: .... The `inclusive or': A or B, or both. The `exclusive or': A or B, but not both. Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 624 (2d ed.1995). Following the above reasoning, one could read the or in the exclusive-use provision of the ATM lease as being inclusive or exclusive. The provision in the ATM lease stating that SouthTrust shall have the exclusive right during the term of this lease and any renewals to operate an ATM or any other type of banking facility at Smiths Station Plaza could be construed to mean either 1) that SouthTrust has the exclusive right during the term of the ATM lease to operate an ATM at Smiths Station Plaza or the exclusive right to operate any other type of banking facility at Smiths Station Plaza, or the exclusive right to operate both an ATM and any other type of banking facility at Smiths Station Plaza; or 2) that SouthTrust has the exclusive right during the term of the ATM lease to operate an ATM at Smiths Station Plaza or to operate any other type of banking facility at Smiths Station Plaza, but it does not have the exclusive right to operate both an ATM and any other type of banking facility at Smiths Station Plaza. The above two readings of the exclusive-use provision, one reading the or as inclusive and the other reading the or as exclusive, render completely different meanings. When any aspect of a contract is capable of more than one meaning, it is ambiguous. Voyager Life Ins. Co. v. Whitson, 703 So.2d 944, 948 (Ala.1997); see also Wayne J. Griffin Elec., Inc. v. Dunn Constr. Co., 622 So.2d 314, 317 (Ala.1993); Cannon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 So.2d 191, 194 (Ala.1991). Therefore, because the exclusive-use provision is susceptible of two interpretations, the ATM lease is ambiguous.