- 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, andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011