- 6 -
written agreement.” Odatalla v. Odatalla, 810 A.2d 93, 98 (N.J.
Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2002) (emphasis added). The parol evidence
rule will exclude testimony only when it is “‘offered for the
purpose of “varying or contradicting” the terms of an
“integrated” contract’”. Id. (quoting Atl. N. Airlines, Inc. v.
Schwimmer, 96 A.2d 652, 656 (N.J. 1953).
The terms of the agreement are clear; in the agreement, the
parties expressly waived alimony, as well as any legal claims
that the parties might have, or ever had, against each other.
The agreement does not indicate that petitioner would waive
$23,400 of equity owed under the marital home buyout in lieu of
an alimony obligation. Although the parol evidence rule will
allow extrinsic evidence to “interpret the meaning of the written
words of [a] contract”, if petitioner’s reasoning were followed,
application of the rule would require that we interpret the
clause “any and all claims” (par. 10(A)(b)) to mean “alimony”, an
obligation that has already been expressly waived elsewhere in
the agreement. Id. This interpretation would cause an
inconsistency unwarranted by the facts of this case.
While we find persuasive petitioner’s argument that he would
not have waived the $23,400 but for the benefit of an alimony
deduction, we also note his admission that he ultimately wished
to do whatever he could to ensure that their child remained with
her mother in the marital home. Taken together, the inconsistent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011