Court Opinion

ID: 9575606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:15:19.824572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:36.801890
License: Public Domain

*579Judge Greene
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority that the trial court granted plaintiff a remedy not provided for in the Agreement. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
A provision in a contract is ambiguous when the “language of [the] contract is fairly and reasonably susceptible to either of the constructions asserted by the parties.” Glover v. First Union National Bank, 109 N.C. App. 451, 456, 428 S.E.2d 206, 209 (1993).
In this case, the Agreement requires decedent “to prepare a Last Will and Testament to cause his estate upon his death to distribute all of his interest in and to the Ocean Isle Beach Golf Lease . . . and the Pearl Golf Course Lease ... to [plaintiff].” Paragraph 3(a)(6) of the Agreement further provides decedent:
shall not at any time during his lifetime dispose of all or any part of his interest in said leases -without [plaintiffs] written consent. ... In the absence of such written consent, the following provisions shall govern:
(6) If [decedent] violates the aforesaid provision concerning his obligation to cause his estate to bequeath the lease interest to [plaintiff] ... then [plaintiff] or [plaintiff’s] father or brother shall have the option to purchase [decedent’s] interest in the leases in question at fair market value as that term is defined hereinafter.
(7) The fair market value of the lease interest in question will be reached by mutual agreement of the parties ....
(Emphasis added.)
Plaintiff argues the remedy provided for in paragraph 3(a)(6) of the Agreement applies only to actions taken by decedent in breach of the Agreement during decedent’s lifetime. In contrast, defendant argues paragraph 3(a)(6) applies only to decedent’s obligation to bequeath the lease agreement to plaintiff and is not limited to actions taken by decedent during his lifetime. Because the remedy provided for in the contract is fairly and reasonably susceptible to either of these constructions, the remedy is ambiguous.
When a provision in a contract is ambiguous, the trial court must construe the contract “in a manner that gives effect to all of its provisions, if the court is reasonably able to do so.” Johnston County v. R. N. Rouse & Co., 331 N.C. 88, 94, 414 S.E.2d 30, 34 (1992).
*580In this case, the Agreement provides the parties with a remedy in addition to the ambiguous remedy provided for in paragraph 3(a)(6). In the paragraph of the Agreement entitled “PERFORMANCE: BREACH: ENFORCEMENT: REMEDIES,” the Agreement provides “[b]oth [decedent] and [plaintiff] mutually agree that either party hereto shall have the right to compel the performance of this Agreement or to sue for the breach thereof.” Pursuant to this provision, plaintiff brought suit against defendant for specific performance of the Agreement and the trial court properly granted plaintiff the relief sought. I, therefore, would affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.