Opinion ID: 2556429
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: A property settlement agreement that is not merged into a divorce judgment retains the characteristics of a contract. Riffenburg v. Riffenburg, 585 A.2d 627, 630 (R.I.1991). The existence of ambiguity in a contract is a question of law. Paul v. Paul, 986 A.2d 989, 993 (R.I.2010). We review questions of law de novo. Lajayi v. Fafiyebi, 860 A.2d 680, 686 (R.I.2004). A reviewing court has no need to construe contractual provisions unless those terms are ambiguous. A.F. Lusi Construction, Inc. v. Peerless Insurance Co., 847 A.2d 254, 258 (R.I.2004). When contract language is clear and unambiguous, words contained therein will be given their usual and ordinary meaning and the parties will be bound by such meaning. Singer v. Singer, 692 A.2d 691, 692 (R.I.1997) (mem.). [T]his Court will deem agreements to be ambiguous when they are reasonably and clearly susceptible to more than one rational interpretation. A.F. Lusi Construction, Inc., 847 A.2d at 258. In making this determination, the court should view the agreements in their entirety and give the contractual language its `plain, ordinary and usual meaning.' Id. (quoting W.P. Associates v. Forcier, Inc., 637 A.2d 353, 356 (R.I.1994)).