Opinion ID: 1657060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conclusion

Text: Having held that the Chancellor should have considered the objections of the Executrix in his Supplemental Opinion and Ruling, this Court finds, as discussed earlier, that the promissory note in question is nevertheless ambiguous. As such, the Parol Evidence Rule does not preclude the consideration of extrinsic evidence such as the testimony of Dorchak to explain, but not contradict, the promissory note. The testimony of Dorchak was not in conflict with the promissory note, but rather served to explain the ambiguities therein. This Court thus finds that, although the Chancellor used an improper analysis in considering the testimony of Dorchak without first having found that the promissory note in question was ambiguous, his eventual consideration of the testimony of Dorchak was nevertheless proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the chancellor is affirmed. JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. DAN M. LEE, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., and PITTMAN, BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., SMITH and MILLS, JJ., concur. McRAE, J., concurs in result only.