- 16 -
not attempting to combine the payment periods contained in the
two provisions to meet a periodicity requirement.10 This case
presents a question of interpreting the provisions of the
agreement regarding the effect of the payee’s death, not an issue
regarding consolidation of the stream of payments.
We find the cases respondent cites, and other cases applying
the general rule prohibiting the merger of different types of
payments, distinguishable from the instant case because those
cases did not deal with a situation where the language in one
payment provision of a divorce document made reference to another
provision or indicated that the payment provision should be read
in conjunction with another part of the document. The present
issue is whether it is appropriate to review the preceding
paragraph to understand the language in question. A well-
established principle of contract law is that a writing is
interpreted as a whole, and any writings which are part of the
same transaction should be viewed together. 2 Restatement,
10We are unaware of any cases since the 1984 revision and
1986 amendment to sec. 71 applying the general rule prohibiting
merger of different types of payments. Although this does not
necessarily mean that the general rule prohibiting merger of
different types of payments does not apply because of the change
in law, the factual circumstances in which the general rule was
applied are not as prevalent under current law. In any event,
the facts and circumstances of this case are distinguishable from
prior cases applying the general rule.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011