Opinion ID: 1662685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pius' Appeal

Text: Pius argues that the $65,000 note is ambiguous as to whether it is secured by the mortgage, making summary judgment inappropriate. His argument is that if the note is in fact secured, NDCC § 32-19.1-07 precludes the Bank from suing on the note after it foreclosed upon the mortgage. Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court to decide. Johnson v. Arithson, 417 N.W.2d 373, 375 (N.D.1987). A contract is ambiguous when a rational argument can be made for different positions about its meaning. Johnson, supra; Graber v. Engstrom, 384 N.W.2d 307, 309 (N.D.1986). If the contract is unambiguous, the intentions of the parties are to be ascertained from the contract alone. See NDCC §§ 9-07-02, 9-07-04; Metric Construction, Inc. v. Great Plains Properties, 344 N.W.2d 679, 682 (N.D.1984). If the contract is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence can be considered to clarify the intent of the parties. Thompson v. Thompson, 391 N.W.2d 608, 610 (N.D.1986). There is no doubt, and the parties do not contest, that the $100,000 note is secured. The $100,000 note, in relevant part, provides as follows: Security: I am giving a security interest in: [X] (brief description of other property) Real Estate mortgage SecurityTo secure the payment of the note total ... (4)[X] If checked, this note is secured by a separate Real estate Mortgage dated October 26, 1983 With regard to the $65,000 note, there is no similar expression of security. Instead, the section which states that I am giving a security interest in:, is left blank with no description of security and no check mark indicating any security. This is followed by the second section which provides: SecurityTo secure the payment of the note total ... (3) [X] If checked this note is not further secured. (4) [] If checked this note is secured by a separate ______________________________ dated __________. On the face of these notes we can discern no ambiguity. The $100,000 note plainly states that it is secured by a real estate mortgage, and the $65,000 note plainly indicates it is unsecured. The mortgage itself expressly states that it secures $100,000 of indebtedness. It also provides that all future advances to the borrower are to be secured by the mortgage when evidenced by promissory notes stating that said notes are secured hereby. Pursuant to this mortgage provision, the $100,000 note was expressly designated as being secured by the mortgage. The $65,000 note was not so designated. We conclude that there is no ambiguity and thus extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent is not permissible. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against Pius.