- 10 -
and unambiguous, the Court "need only examine the writing."
McMahon v. McMahon, 612 A.2d 1360, 1364 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
Further proof that the payments were intended to be made for
24 months absolute is at page eight of the agreement which
contains a clause labeled "AGREEMENT BINDING ON HEIRS" (binding
on heirs clause) that provides:
This Agreement shall be binding and shall inure to the
benefit of the parties hereto and their respective
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns.
Respondent argues that this provision (which also applies to the
addendum) provides that if Colleen died before the payments were
completed, her estate would have a claim upon the remaining
payments. Petitioner contends that this clause only provides
that the contract does not terminate upon death, but only the
rights that were intended to survive the death of one of the
parties would inure to the benefit of the other's estate. If
petitioner's position was correct, and the binding on heirs
clause did not address the payments due under the addendum, the
usefulness of such a clause would be eliminated. Petitioner's
argument would lead to the proposition that if a given provision
is not explicitly referred to in a binding on heirs clause or
expressly written to continue after the death of one of the
parties, then an intent inquiry must be made. However, the
contract provides that the benefits will inure to the parties'
respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011