Opinion ID: 2137478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the circuit court erred in granting partial summary judgment on the lost interest issue.

Text: The parties to the escrow agreement agreed, in pertinent part: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Peter Dupris and Hazel Dupris (Dupris), Production Credit Association of the Midlands (PCAM) and First Bank of Rapid City (Bank) enter into this Escrow Agreement dated this 23rd day of March, 1989. That Dupris, PCAM, and Bank hereby agree to escrow the amount of $112,151.85 representing all funds arising out of sale of the Peter Dupris cattle with the exception of those proceeds of the sale of cattle currently being disputed by Ken Geisinger. That the Bank agrees to act as an escrow agent and to hold this escrow agreement and such funds on the following terms and conditions: That the funds shall be deposited into a certificate of deposit being made in the name of Wynne and Holm, P.C. as trustee for Peter Dupris and Hazel Dupris and the Production Credit Association of the Midlands. (Emphasis added.) That Bank shall not distribute any funds except upon written consent of Dupris and PCAM, or upon the receipt of a certified copy of an Order entered by the United States District Court, District of South Dakota, Central Division, ordering the release of such funds and directing the manner of such release. That Bank shall assume no responsibility whatever, except to receive and hold this Escrow Agreement and funds, and to release the same as herein provided. PCA argues that Wynne and Holm failed to ensure that the funds entrusted to them under this escrow agreement were earning interest. They assert that a certificate of deposit, in the amount of $115,000.00, matured on May 24, 1989, and Wynne and Holm had a fiduciary duty to place the monies into an interest-bearing account, and that they negligently failed to do so. Wynne and Holm assert that they were trustee for Dupris for the limited purpose of depositing the monies into the escrow account. They assert that the wording of the escrow agreement was used to facilitate the transfer of funds from the Eagle Butte Bank to First Bank. Wynne and Holm argue that PCA drafted the escrow agreement and therefore any ambiguity should be construed against PCA. We agree. The effects and terms of a contract are questions of law to be resolved by the court.... On appeal, this court can read a contract itself without a presumption in favor of the trial court's determination.... The court is to enforce and give effect to the unambiguous language and terms of the contract.... Whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court.... A contract is ambiguous when application of rules of interpretation leave a genuine uncertainty as to which of two or more meanings is correct.... Baker v. Wilburn, 456 N.W.2d 304, 306 (S.D.1990) (citations omitted). Ambiguities arising in a contract should be interpreted and construed against the scrivener. Forester v. Weber, 298 N.W.2d 96, 97 (S.D.1980) (emphasis added) (citing City of Sioux Falls v. Henry Carlson Co., 258 N.W.2d 676 (S.D.1977)); Clements v. Gabriel, 472 N.W.2d 480 (S.D.1991) (Henderson and Wuest, Justices, dissenting). This is a rule of construction to be applied against one who drafted an ambiguous contract. Clements, supra ; Weisser v. Kropuenske, 55 S.D. 558, 561, 226 N.W. 760, 761 (1929). Any doubts arising from an ambiguity of language in a contract should be resolved against the speaker or writer, because he can, by exactness of expression, more easily prevent mistakes in meaning than the one with whom he is dealing. Clements, supra ; Enchanted World Doll Museum v. Buskohl, 398 N.W.2d 149, 152 (S.D.1986); City of Sioux Falls, supra . SDCL 55-1-4 provides: Subject to the provisions of § 43-10-4 concerning express trusts in relation to real property an express trust is created as to the trustor and beneficiary by any words or acts of the trustor indicating with reasonable certainty: (1) An intention on the part of the trustor to create a trust; and (2) The subject, purpose, and beneficiary thereof. In a letter to Wynne and Holm, PCA's staff attorney stated: Enclosed is the most recent Escrow Agreement and signature card, executed by Ronald D. Ensz on behalf of PCAM. I understand that you will obtain your clients' signatures and then forward the Agreement and signature card to First Bank. From the way the Depositors are listed on the Certificate of Deposit, it could be interpreted that Wynne & Holm, P.C., is acting as trustee for PCAM. Of course, PCAM would not agree with such an arrangement. Therefore, I telephoned Jerry Harder of First Bank and he assured me that Wynne & Holm, P.C., is acting only as trustee for the Dupris. (Emphasis added.) However, PCA submitted the affidavit of Sam Benne (Vice President of First Bank) who stated: [T]he escrow agreement is specific in allowing only Wynne and Holm to take charge of the funds subject to the certificate of deposit. Questions remain. Assuming Wynne and Holm were trustees: For what purposes were they trustees? For whom were they trustees? What was the nature and extent of their trust responsibilities? We believe that there exists a genuine issue of material fact under the terms of the parties' agreement which precludes summary judgment in this case. Limpert, supra ; First Western Bank, supra ; Zeeb, supra . Particularly in light of the nature of the charge by PCA that Wynne & Holm negligently failed to insure that the funds were drawing interest. Negligence actions are generally inappropriate for summary judgment. Laber v. Koch, 383 N.W.2d 490 (S.D.1986); Lalley v. Safway Steel Scaffolds, Inc., 364 N.W.2d 139 (S.D.1985); Myers v. Lennox Co-op Ass'n., 307 N.W.2d 863 (S.D.1981); Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company, 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968). Reversed and remanded. HENDERSON, WUEST, SABERS and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur.