Opinion ID: 1745625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the lower court err in granting Hazel O. Hensley's Motion for Specific Performance?

Text: In his findings of fact, the chancellor determined that Hazel Hensley, without hesitation, commingled her funds with those of her husband. He further found that Mrs. Hensley's expectations of a monetary give-and-take in the marriage were not diminished by the death of Fred Hensley. Finally, the chancellor held that by virtue of a provision in the will executed by Fred Hensley, leaving Hazel O. Hensley with a life estate in the house but no real outside source of income for its upkeep, the intent of paragraph 4 of the Ante-Nuptial Agreement was to provide for his wife during her lifetime. Appellant contends that the chancellor failed to interpret the agreement in conformity with settled principles of law which require the entire agreement to be construed together, giving undue weight to no individual provision thereof. By this argument, appellant refers to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Ante-Nuptial Agreement, which he contends must be read in conjunction with paragraph 4, and the only apparent meaning to be given to the agreement allots Mrs. Hensley support and maintenance for Mr. Hensley's lifetime. These paragraphs read as follows: 5. It is further agreed that Mr. Hensley and Mrs. Owens do mutually waive and release to each other, and to their heirs at law, devises, legatees, successors and assigns, all claims of dower, courtesy, homestead, widow's allowance, all rights of support, and all claims as heirs at law of each other in and to their respective properties mentioned above. 6. It is further agreed that nothing herein shall be construed to be a bar to either party's giving any property of which he or she may be possessed to the other party, by will or otherwise. It is understood that each party to this agreement shall control his or her own personal estate, as described herein, and do with the properties whatsoever he or she wishes and wills, by his or her order or directions, or by a testament, the same as either could or would do if no marriage relation existed between them. Reading the foregoing paragraphs along with paragraph 4, the Estate of Fred B. Hensley asserts that the plain language of the agreement limits the duty of support to the personal estate of the deceased, meaning the assets owned and controlled by him during his lifetime, and that on his death the obligation to support Hazel Hensley under the agreement terminated. Ante-nuptial settlements, when fairly made, are favored by the courts, not only on account of the security thereby provided for the wife, but also because of provision for the issue of the marriage is usually the great and immediate object in view; and therefore, the most favorable exposition will be made of the words of such instruments, to support the intention of the parties. Gorin v. Gordon, 38 Miss. 205 (1859). An antenuptial contract is like any other contract, Stevenson v. Renardet, 83 Miss. 392, 35 So. 576 (1904), and as such is subject to the same rules of construction and interpretation applicable to contracts. See, Hand, Shelton, Mississippi Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, (1981). The first rule of contract interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the parties. Sumter Lumber Co. v. Skipper, 183 Miss. 595, 608, 184 So. 296, 298 (1938). More correctly stated, our concern is not nearly so much what the parties may have intended as it is with what they said, for the words employed are by far the best resource for ascertaining intent and assigning meaning with fairness and accuracy. Id. We believe the agreement in the case at bar clearly provides that support and maintenance were only intended for Mrs. Hensley during her husband's lifetime; however, were we to view the contract by means of extrinsic or parol evidence, the conclusion reached is the same. Bob Crutcher, the attorney who drafted the Ante-Nuptial Agreement, testified that the intent of Mr. Hensley at all times was to provide for his wife during his (Mr. Hensley's) lifetime. Crutcher stated that on August 27, 1975, Fred Hensley and Hazel Owens came to his office, at which time he read the entire agreement to them paragraph by paragraph, and asked if both parties understood it. He further stated that he knew Mrs. Owens understood all the provisions and that the whole purpose of it was very clear in her mind. Further, Crutcher stated that although Fred Hensley executed the agreement at that time, Hazel Owens took the agreement with her and apparently executed it two days later, having received independent advice, and had the document notarized by an officer of the Merchants and Farmers Bank in Holly Springs, a Mr. C.L. Robinson. Further, Mr. Crutcher, fearing the consequences of a Tennessee case, the cite of which we were not given, in drafting the agreement desired to make sure that Mrs. Hensley (then Mrs. Owens) was not deceived in any manner and made a part of the agreement what amounts to a financial statement of Mr. Hensley, fully disclosing to Mrs. Owens all of his assets. [2] Mrs. Owens was not required to disclose her assets even though the record shows that she had a separate estate. [3] There is no inference that the parties did not deal honestly and fairly with each other. This Court has said that: We have long adhered to the rule that a written instrument must be considered as a whole and all parts construed together. (citations omitted) In clinging to this rule we are prevented from ascertaining the meaning of a contract by resort to solitary or fragmentary parts of the instrument. Texaco, Inc. v. Kennedy, 271 So.2d 450, 452 (Miss. 1973). Further, we have held that we will not create for the parties a contract to which they themselves have not agreed to. Glantz Contracting Co. v. General Electric Company, 379 So.2d 912, 916 (Miss. 1980). Finally, It is not now and never has been the function of this Court to relieve a party to a freely negotiated contract of the burdens of a provision which becomes more onerous than had originally been anticipated. Transcontinental Gas v. State Oil and Gas Board, 457 So.2d 1298, 1322 (Miss. 1984), reversed on other grounds, 474 U.S. 409, 106 S.Ct. 709, 88 L.Ed.2d 732 (1986). The chancellor was apparently influenced by what he considered to be rather destitute circumstances of the widow; however, a full reading of the record divulges that Mr. Hensley had actually been very benevolent. Not only did he by his will provide Mrs. Hensley with a home for the rest of her life, but also during his lifetime she was able to accumulate, and apparently from him, certificates of deposit amounting to approximately $40,000. Also, during the period of the marriage, Mrs. Hensley had sold the home of her first husband and insofar as the record shows this was not shared with Mr. Hensley but with her children. Also, the chancellor apparently overlooked the fact that Mrs. Hensley's social security payments received a sizeable increase upon the death of Mr. Hensley and she also became the recipient of a portion of his state retirement. We find that from the terms of the contract that the intent of the parties was to limit the wife's support during the lifetime of her husband. We, therefore, hold that the chancellor misconstrued the contract. REVERSED AND RENDERED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.