Opinion ID: 2095087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The SCC and the 4S Partnership Releases

Text: [¶ 11] Jeffrey and Diane contend that the trial court erred when it concluded that John and Craig had not released Jeffrey and Diane from the claim of breach of the agreement. Jeffrey and Diane had the burden of proving the affirmative defense of release, which is similar to the defense of accord and satisfaction, by a preponderance of the evidence. Cf. E.S. Herrick Co. v. Me. Wild Blueberry Co., 670 A.2d 944, 946 (Me.1996) (stating that the party asserting the defense of accord and satisfaction has the burden of proof). The interpretation of an ambiguous release is a question of fact, Hawkes v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 2001 ME 8, ¶ 20, 764 A.2d 258, 266-67, which we review for clear error, E.S. Herrick Co., 670 A.2d at 946. However, when the defense of release is based upon an unambiguous writing, the inquiry is a question of law, Hawkes, 2001 ME 8, ¶ 20, 764 A.2d at 266-67, which we review de novo, Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Comm'n, 2004 ME 20, ¶ 16, 843 A.2d 43, 49. [¶ 12] Jeffrey and Diane argue that the releases signed by John and Craig relieved Jeffrey and Diane of liability for the late payments on the SCC shares and the 4S Partnership. The release that the parties signed on July 12 states that John and Craig release Jeffrey and Diane: from any and all manner of actions, suits, damages, attorney fees, and claims of whatsoever kind or nature . . . now existing or which may result from the existing state of things, as of the effective date of this Agreement, which [John and Craig] ever had or now have, in any way related to the business of Shostak Construction Corporation. Also on July 12, when Craig received his payment for the 4S Partnership, he released Jeffrey and Diane from any and all claims, causes of actions or liabilities in any way related to the 4S Partnership or the real property. [¶ 13] John and Craig contend that they released Jeffrey and Diane in the SCC release only as to claims related to the business of SCC. They argue that their claim for breach of the settlement agreement and request for interest on the late payments is not a claim relating to SCC's business. We disagree. Business is a very broad term, and the redemption of SCC shares clearly related to the business of SCC. If the parties had intended to exclude certain claims from the release, that is what they should have stated. Indeed, that was exactly what they stated in the RDC release. In contrast to the SCC and 4S Partnership releases, the RDC release, signed on September 10, expressly excluded all issues unresolved and referred to in the Court Order dated August 22, 2001. The RDC release demonstrates that the parties knew how to be precise. [¶ 14] In the SCC release, John and Craig released all claims now existing or which may result from the existing state of things, without reservation. As of the date of the release agreement, July 12, John and Craig's claims for interest were now existing. The unambiguous SCC release agreement bars John and Craig's recovery of interest for the untimely redemption of the SCC shares. [¶ 15] The 4S Partnership release is similar to the SCC release. In it, Craig released Jeffrey and Diane from any and all claims ... in any way related to the 4S Partnership or the real property. Because of this release Craig cannot recover on his interest claim regarding the partnership. [¶ 16] We do not agree with John and Craig's contention that the court's August 22 order demonstrates that they had not released their claim to interest because it followed their signing of the SCC release and Craig's signature on the 4S Partnership release. That order recites that a disputed issue is [w]hether interest should be paid on the Shostak Construction redemption price, the [4S] acquisition price, the Rockwood Development stock purchases and, if so, for what period. The order is simply a recitation of the contested issue and nothing more.