- 9 -
Ignoring irrelevant contingencies, reading paragraph 5 of
the agreement as a whole makes it apparent that Linda and Ray
intended for him to make the payments only while she lived there.
Because the agreement provided that the payments would terminate
upon the occurrence of contingencies other than Linda's death
(e.g., remarriage or relocation), a reasonable interpretation of
the provisions would lead to the conclusion that the payments
were for her support. Obviously, at the time that the agreement
was entered into, Ray and Linda anticipated that the children
would reside with her at the marital home, but Ray's liability
was not dependent upon it. Even after the children moved from
the house, Ray was required by local court order to continue the
payments. We think it unreasonable to construe the agreement in
such a manner as to require that the payments continue in a
situation in which Linda would move from the marital home, but
the children would remain. Such a construction would be
necessary to support Linda's position in this case.
As we would expect the highest court of Arkansas would do,
we find that the most reasonable construction of the relevant
portion of paragraph 5 of the agreement leads to the conclusion
that the Linda and Ray did not intend for him to make the
payments after her death. That being so, Ray's liability to make
the payments pursuant to the relevant portion of paragraph 5 of
the agreement would not continue for any period after Linda's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011