Court Opinion

ID: 9762735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:30:07.580245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.006268
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Timothy O. Dudley, for appellants. The Rose Law Firm, by: David L. Williams and Grant E. Fort-son, for appellee. Judith Rogers, Judge.  In our recent opinion, dated September 17, 1997, we reversed and remanded an order of summary judgment, holding that the contracts in question were not so clear and unambiguous so as to entitle appellee to prevail on its complaint as a matter of law. In reaching that decision, we applied the rule of contract construction that ambiguities in a contract are to be construed most strongly against the party who prepared the contract, naming appellee as that party. In a petition for rehearing, appellee maintains that there is no record proof that it indeed prepared the contracts. We agree that we overlooked the origin of this assertion. The only reference to appellee’s having prepared the contracts was contained in appellants’ trial brief. We acknowledge that it was not proper to consider factual allegations made in trial briefs. See Pyle v. Robertson, 313 Ark. 692, 871 S.W.2d 345 (1994).  However, this factual misstatement does not alter the result of the appeal. Our essential holding remains unaffected that the contracts were ambiguous and that appellee was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Petition denied.