Opinion ID: 2345248
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Abell-James Settlement Agreement Was Unambiguous

Text: Neither Mr. Abell nor Mr. James disputes that the settlement agreement was a binding contract. Instead, they disagree about whether the terms of their agreement were ambiguous and whether a court may consider extrinsic evidence in construing its provisions. As previously discussed, because we follow the objective law of contracts, we will not inquire beyond contractual terms unless the language of the agreement is ambiguous. See Akassy v. William Penn Apartments Ltd., 891 A.2d 291, 303 (D.C.2006). In other words, absent ambiguity, we enforce written contracts according to their terms. See Sutton, 686 A.2d at 1048; Saslaw v. Rosenfeld, 148 A.2d 311, 312 (D.C. 1959) (The construction of a release is governed by the intent of the parties as manifested in the language of the instrument.). A contract is not ambiguous where the court can determine its meaning without any other guide than a knowledge of the simple facts on which, from the nature of language in general, its meaning depends. Burbridge v. Howard Univ., 305 A.2d 245, 247 (D.C.1973) (citing 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 294, at 34-35 (1963)). The Superior Court erred by not enforcing the settlement agreement, which unambiguously required Mr. Abell and Modern Management to deliver $140,000 to Mr. James' counsel. Pursuant to the objective theory of contract law, we hold parties to the promises they articulate, without attempting to discern their unexpressed intentions. Bolling Federal Credit Union, 475 A.2d at 385 (The language of the release is sufficiently clear to preclude, under parol evidence principles, the use of extrinsic evidence to probe the parties' intentions.). Accordingly, it is not relevant whether the parties contemplated defendants having to pay to discharge a lien based on a personal judgment. Defendants agreed in plain language to deliver $140,000 to Mr. James' counsel. This situation is not conceptually different than if the house had sold for less than anticipated. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Mr. Abell would still owe $140,000.