Opinion ID: 2646730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Estate’s Contract Claims

Text: The Estate claims that the amount it is owed pursuant to redemption clauses in shareholder agreements that governed the calculation of this amount with respect to the Corporate Defendants, and the redemption clause in the Operating Agreement with respect to Atlantic City, was incorrectly calculated. Specifically, the Estate argues that various accounting practices incorrectly devalued the worth of the Corporate Defendants and Atlantic City. In essence, the Estate is arguing that under its reading of the contract the accountant retained by the Corporate Defendants and Atlantic City artificially devalued these companies, leading the Corporate Defendants and Atlantic City to offer a lower redemption price than is warranted. The district court rejected the Estate’s interpretation of the agreement, finding the contract ambiguous. We review the district court’s threshold determination that a contract is ambiguous de novo. JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 568 F.3d 390, 397 (2d Cir. 2009). “Contract terms are considered ambiguous if they are capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire integrated agreement and who is cognizant of the customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the particular trade or business.” Lee v. BSB Greenwich Mortg. Ltd. P’ship, 267 F.3d 172, 179 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). The meaning of ambiguous contract language “is a question of fact for the fact-finder.” JA Apparel Corp., 568 F.3d at 397. As such, our review is limited to determining whether the district court’s conclusions in this case were clearly erroneous. See Bessemer Trust Co., N.A. v. Branin, 618 F.3d 76, 85 (2d Cir. 2010) (“In reviewing a district court’s decision in a bench trial, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.”(internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 Based on our de novo of the contracts at issue, we find that the contract terms were ambiguous, see JA Apparel Corp., 568 F.3d at 396-97, and therefore we will not disturb the district court’s threshold finding with respect to ambiguity. The Estate, however, urges, as it did below, that its preferred method of accounting and valuing the Estate’s interest in the Corporate Defendants and Atlantic City should have been adopted by the accountant pursuant to these agreements. With respect to these arguments, the district court found that ambiguous language in these agreements did not mandate the various approaches the Estate urged the accountant should have taken. We do not find this determination clearly erroneous, and therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Estate’s contract claims. Bessemer Trust Co., 618 F.3d at 85. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED with respect to the dismissal of the Estate’s contract claims.