Opinion ID: 1817742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Doctrine of the Last Antecedent

Text: [¶ 13.] In support of his position, Donald advances the Doctrine of Last Antecedent, which provides the following: It is the general rule of statutory as well as grammatical construction that a modifying clause is confined to the last antecedent unless there is something in the subject matter or dominant purpose which requires a different interpretation. Rogers v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 520 N.W.2d 614, 617 (S.D.1994). Donald urges us to construe the words during the life of this contract to modify only predeceases [Parents]. Under Donald's argument, the phrase decides to quit farming survives payoff of the contract and prevents delivery of the deed to Dean. If the phrase decides to quit farming survives payoff, Donald would continue to have a first-chance-to-buy the property as long as Donald lives. To secure his first-chance-to-buy, Donald then makes the quantum leap in logic that he can order the escrow agent to retain possession of the warranty deed. [¶ 14.] Essentially Donald argues that during the life of the contract would have to appear after each phrase in the list to modify anything more than the phrase predeceases [Parents]. Carrying Donald's argument to its logical extreme, the paragraph would have to read as follows: [I]f [Dean] subsequently decides to quit farming during the life of this contract, is incapacitated so he cannot farm said land during the life of this contract, or becomes incompetent during the life of this contract or predeceases [ Parents ] during the life of this contract, then it is agreed between the parties that Donald... shall have the first chance to buy the above-described property.... (emphasis added). Donald's argument is wrong. If Donald is correct, then the phrase predeceases [Parents] during the life of this contact would be meaningless because Dean predeceasing Parents is contained within each of the prior contingencies in the list. For example, if Dean died, he would most certainly quit farming. If Dean died, he would most certainly be incapacitated so he could not farm the land. Finally, if Dean died, he would also become incompetent. A contract should not be interpreted in a manner that renders a portion of it meaningless. Bowen v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., 758 N.E.2d 976, 980 (Ind.App.2001). A more logical and less strained reading of the contract is that if any of the four conditions occur during the life of the contract, then the first-chance-to-buy would be triggered.