Marlin G. Springer - Page 16

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011