Court Opinion

ID: 9703320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:52:15.5264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:54.041574
License: Public Domain

GROSSHANS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I would affirm the trial judge.
I agree that this court’s review of the record is the same as the trial court’s. I further agree that we must interpret the sentence as written and that a modification of the sentence is not to be included in the interpretation of it. The sentence is poorly punctuated. The semicolon is wrong. If we corrected the punctuation without adding or deleting words we would not cure the problem presented by the sentence. I also agree that it is the clear meaning of the words utilized in the sentence which must be considered when attempting to give effect to the mutual intent of the parties.
I disagree with the majority finding that no ambiguity exists in the sentence. Although the parties agree that payments during appellee’s lifetime and after appellant’s death are to be guaranteed, they disagree as to when the guaranty is to be made and what additional payments, if any, the guaranty is to cover.
Appellee interprets the sentence to mean that all monthly payments after the cash payment are to be guaranteed until she dies, even beyond appellant’s death, and the guaranty is to be established as soon as possible after the divorce.
Appellant interprets the sentence to mean that only those monthly payments which may be payable after appellant’s death are to be guaranteed and that the guaranty does not have to be provided “immediately,” “forthwith,” or at any specific time. Apparently appellant contends that if somehow he could on his deathbed, just before expiring, establish the guaranty, that this would satisfy the requirement.
The trial court found that no ambiguity existed and interpreted the sentence as ap-pellee did. In arriving at his decision the trial judge conceded that possibly the sentence was ambiguous and if so the rule of law would require that the ambiguity be construed against the scrivener.
Now the majority also finds no ambiguity to exist and comes up with yet a third interpretation of the same sentence.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines ambiguity as “the condition of admitting of two or more meanings, of being understood in more than one way *781. .” Our court has consistently held that language is ambiguous when it is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense. Piechowski v. Case, 255 N.W.2d 72 (S.D.1977); Newton v. Erickson, 73 S.D. 228, 41 N.W.2d 545 (1950).
Reading the sentence at issue in conformity with the foregoing rules, I would find that the sentence is ambiguous. To illustrate the ambiguity it is only necessary to apply three questions to each of the three interpretations, that is: (1) What is to be guaranteed? (2) When is the monthly sum to be guaranteed? (3) What is the term of the guaranty?
Appellee and the trial court answer these questions as follows: (1) The monthly sum; (2) forthwith, being subsequent to the cash payment and reasonably soon after the decree; and (3) the entire remainder of appel-lee’s life, even beyond appellant’s death.
Appellant answers these questions as follows: (1) The monthly sum, if any, due appellee after appellant’s death for the remainder of appellee’s life; (2) at the time of appellant’s death; and (3) from appellant’s death to appellee’s death.
The majority of this court answers these questions as follows: (1) The monthly sum due appellee after appellant’s death for the remainder of her life, if applicable; (2) forthwith, being subsequent to the cash payment and reasonably soon after the decree; and (3) from appellant’s death to ap-pellee’s death, if applicable.
Since it is obvious that an ambiguity does exist in that the sentence is capable of being interpreted to have at least three reasonable meanings, the sentence should be interpreted most strongly against the appellant inasmuch as he drafted it and caused the uncertainty to exist. City of Sioux Falls v. Henry Carlson Co., 258 N.W.2d 676 (S.D.1977); Jones v. American Oil Co., 87 S.D. 384, 209 N.W.2d 1 (1973); Evans v. Heaton, 57 S.D. 436, 233 N.W. 281 (1930); Weisser v. Kropuenske, 55 S.D. 558, 226 N.W. 760 (1929). He used the word “guaranteed.” It is not a shallow, meaningless word. The majority appreciates the shallowness of appellant’s attempt to satisfy the guaranty by the establishment of a testamentary trust but the majority does not go far enough to hold him to the guaranty he imposed upon himself. The guaranty, even as applied by the majority, is worthless if appellant becomes penniless tomorrow and appellee dies years from now but prior to appellant.
I believe that this court should affirm the trial court. It appears to me that the majority blithely ignores logic and departs from long-standing legal precedent in order to give each of the litigating parties a portion of that which they seek. I submit that this decision will not sleep nor rest easy, but that the precedent set here will rise from the ashes like that bird of wonder, the maiden phoenix, creating another heir which will haunt this court for years to come.