Opinion ID: 1912674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: assignment agreement

Text: The Assignment Agreement provides in part: [Napleton] and [Omaha College] agree to terminate [Omaha. College's] rights and obligations under the 1999 Lease and to assign [Omaha College's] rights and obligations therein to [Vatterott]. The meaning of a contract is a question of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach its conclusions independently of the determinations made by the court below. [11] In interpreting a contract, a court must first determine, as a matter of law, whether the contract is ambiguous. [12] When the terms of a contract are clear, they are to be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning. [13] The language of the Assignment Agreement is clear and unambiguous. Omaha College's rights and obligations under the 1999 lease were terminated as of October 5, 2001, the date the Assignment Agreement was executed. The Assignment Agreement does not provide that Vatterott is liable for any obligations arising prior to the date of assignment. Absent a provision obligating Vatterott for liabilities arising prior to the time Vatterott obtained its leasehold interest in the property, the lack of privity of estate in this case compels our conclusion that Vatterott is not liable for Omaha College's failure to fulfill Omaha College's obligations under the 1999 lease.