Court Opinion

ID: 9760688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:08:42.871917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:15.813673
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION

Justice NIGRO.
I agree with the majority that the trial court properly admitted parol evidence in the instant case to clarify the meaning of the term “cohabitate” in the parties’ property settlement agreement. I write separately solely to state that as a former trial judge, I am troubled that Appellee did not appear before the trial court during either of the scheduled hearings concerning her contempt petition and thus, did not even attempt to offer her own testimony regarding the parties’ intended meaning of the term cohabitate. Indeed, had Appellee offered her own testimony concerning the term, the trial court may have credited that testimony and rejected Appellant’s contrary testimony as incredible. Instead, Appellee simply did not appear in court, making it particularly difficult to now accept her argument that the trial court should have construed the term differently.