- 8 -
and wife are governed, in general, by the rules and provisions
applicable in the case of other contracts". Sutton v. Sutton,
771 S.W.2d 791, 792 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989). "[D]ifferent clauses
of a contract must be read together and construed so that all of
its parts harmonize if that is possible." Dodson v. Dodson, 825
S.W.2d 608, 611 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992); see also Floyd v. Otter
Creek Homeowners Association, 742 S.W.2d 120 (Ark. Ct. App.
1988). Furthermore, where there is some ambiguity in the
provisions of a separation agreement, it is the court's duty to
determine the intent of the parties. Sutton v. Sutton, supra at
792.
An Arkansas court has never addressed what Ray and Linda
intended by the above cited portion of paragraph 5 of the
agreement with respect to Ray's liability to make the payments
for any period after Linda's death. We are bound, nevertheless,
to reach a result that would be consistent with that of
Arkansas's highest court if the issue were presented to that
court for resolution. See Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387
U.S. 456, 465 (1967); Boyter v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 989, 995
(1980), remanded on another issue 668 F.2d 1382 (4th Cir. 1981).
In so doing, for the following reasons, we find that Ray's
liability to make the payments terminates upon the death of
Linda.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011