Opinion ID: 2981253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Date of Agreement Termination

Text: The district court’s conclusion that the Agreement was terminated on September 29, 2006, rather than on July 16, 2006, was not clearly erroneous, as Albaugh argues. The evidence could have supported either side’s account of what was discussed at the July 16 meeting. Evidence supporting the district court’s conclusion included: testimony from Drexel’s CEO, which the district court found to be more credible than that of Albaugh’s President; the lack of any evidence from Albaugh regarding planning for a termination meeting apart from testimony; the lack of any written evidence that there was follow-up regarding what was discussed; and the language of the September 29 letter, which made no reference to the meeting and suggested that the letter itself was meant to effect the Agreement’s termination. Although evidence was presented that could have led a factfinder to the opposite conclusion as well, absent clear error, it is not our place to second-guess the district court’s determination that Drexel’s account was more credible than Albaugh’s and was supported by more evidence. The district court’s resolution of this factual issue was not clearly erroneous.