Opinion ID: 2813300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶29 We concur with the District Court that the 75% provision of Section 2.1 of the Plan and the waiver provision of Paragraph 4 of the Adoption Agreement are incompatible and render the contract ambiguous. Interpreting the contract most strongly against the drafter, and considering the facts that the Adoption Agreement is the most recent document, that the Adoption Agreement was meant to apply specifically to GFOA while the Plan was prepared for generic use, and that MHN’s conduct demonstrated a lack of concern for enforcing the 75% provision, we conclude that the waiver provision controls. Thus GFOA properly submitted waivers for 27 employees and did not breach the contract by falling below 75% participation. The District Court did not err when it interpreted the contract thusly and granted summary judgment to GFOA. Because we determine that GFOA did not breach the contract we need not consider the enforceability of the acceleration clause in the Plan. GFOA is entitled to its attorney’s fees accrued while defending this appeal. ¶30 Affirmed. /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT 10 We Concur: /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JIM RICE 11