Opinion ID: 859475
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Punch-List Items

Text: 23 ¶62. As previously mentioned, HCCL submitted to the trial court a list of claims it deemed were related to aesthetic effect and thus not subject to arbitration. HCCL included the punchlist items it submitted to Myrick prior to the termination. In its order, the trial court picked which punch-list items it believed to be aesthetic and thus were not subject to arbitration. On appeal, HCCL argues that the trial court’s order is not “workable.” We agree. ¶63. HCCL listed each aesthetic claim by its location in or around the building. For example, HCCL listed the following issues for the “south side” of the building: South Side Overhead light needs paint Left side of door no wall cover & not square Above door needs work Outside cove stucco is marked up Where stucco meets wood/gutter very rough on all south side doors In its order, the trial court accepted the following claims as aesthetic and thus not subject to arbitration: South Side Overhead light needs paint Outside cove stucco is marked up Where stucco meets wood/gutter very rough on all south side doors Thus, the remaining two claims – “[l]eft side of door no wall cover & not square” and “[a]bove door needs work”– were subject to arbitration. The trial court’s order contains many other examples like this. ¶64. As previously mentioned, the Court notes one ambiguity not raised by the parties – the definition of “aesthetic effect.” 9 The parties provided a categorical description of items 9 For instance, HCCL listed a complaint as “handles missing on many windows.” Without a handle, it may be difficult to open and close a window – an issue of functionality. 24 not subject to arbitration (aesthetic-effect claims), but the parties failed to identify the standards to use to determine whether a claim is aesthetic. “Aesthetic effect” is a term of art, not a legal term, and it is not defined anywhere in the parties’ contract. Thus, ambiguity exists regarding what that term means and what claims it covers. To resolve this ambiguity, the trial court should have utilized the applicable rules of contract construction. ¶65. The Court has stated that Whenever the terms of a contract are susceptible of more than one interpretation, or an ambiguity arises, or the intent and object of the contract cannot be ascertained from the language employed, parol evidence may be introduced to show what was in the minds of the parties at the time of making the contract . . . . The ambiguity may arise from words which are uncertain when applied to the subject matter of the contract. IP Timberlands Operating Co., Ltd. v. Denmiss Corp., 726 So. 2d 96, 110 (¶59) (Miss. 1998) (citations omitted). Generally, courts look to the “four corners” of the contract to ascertain its meaning. In this case, the term “aesthetic effect” is not defined anywhere in the contract. Courts can use the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.10 See Dalton v. Cellular South, Inc., 20 So. 3d 1227, 1232 (¶10) (Miss. 2009). Where the language of the But also, the missing handle could not be pleasing to the eye. So, is this an aesthetic claim? HCCL’s punch list contains many other examples like this. Thus, on remand, it would be helpful for the trial court to determine whether functional issues are covered by the aestheticeffect exception. 10 Aesthetic is defined as (1) “relating to the philosophy or theories of aesthetics,” (2) “of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste: the aesthetic faculties,” (3) “characterized be a heightened sensitivity to beauty,” (4) “artistic,” and (5) “conforming to accepted notions of good taste.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 28 (3d ed. 1992). 25 contract is not helpful, extrinsic evidence may be considered, such as prevailing industry standards or commonly accepted trade usage. Id. ¶66. Because the contract does not define “aesthetic” and there was no evidence of a prevailing industry standard or commonly accepted trade usage of the term, the trial court had only the applicable dictionary definition.11 The applicable dictionary definition must then be applied to each individual item to determine whether it is in the category of items excluded from arbitration. There is nothing in the record before this Court to indicate that this was done. ¶67. As a preliminary fact-finder, the trial court must determine which claims are arbitrable and which claims are subject to litigation. Greater Canton Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Ables, 948 So. 2d 417, 422 (¶12) (Miss. 2007). To do so, the trial court must determine the definition of “aesthetic effect” using the canons of contract construction, as aesthetic-effect claims are not subject to arbitration. The trial court determined which claims were arbitrable and which claims were subject to litigation. However, the trial court provided no reasoning for its selections during the hearing on the motion nor its order. This yielded inconsistent results in the trial court’s order. ¶68. The Court cannot determine what the trial court relied upon in making its decision on the punch-list items. Thus, it is impossible for this Court to determine whether the trial court erred in its judgment. As previously discussed, the trial court must determine what “aesthetic effect” encompasses. 11 See supra note 10. 26 ¶69. Therefore, we remand this case to the trial court on the punch-list items alone and instruct the trial court to provide reasoning for its aesthetic and nonaesthetic designation of those claims.