- 17 -
Contracts 2d, sec. 202 (1997).11 Additionally, an interpretation
that gives a reasonable meaning to all parts of a writing is
preferred to one that leaves portions of the writing meaningless.
Rink v. Commissioner, 47 F.3d 168, 171 (6th Cir. 1995), affg. 100
T.C. 319 (1993); Poison Creek Ranches #1, Ltd. v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-504; Washoe Ranches #1, Ltd. v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-495. With these principles in mind, we proceed
to examine the divorce documents to determine whether they
provide that there was no liability to make the annual payments
for any period after the death of Ms. Springer.
Article 6 of the marital settlement is entitled “ALIMONY”
and contains two paragraphs dealing with recurring payments to
Ms. Springer. Although the caption of article 6 is not
dispositive, the use of parallel language and the positioning of
the paragraphs together in this article is significant. It is
also noteworthy that article 6 is separate and distinct from the
articles providing for the division of property. The first
paragraph specifically states that these payments will continue
11Nebraska caselaw provides similar rules regarding the
interpretation of contractual agreements. “‘A contract must be
interpreted as a whole and, if possible, effect must be given to
every part thereof.’” Husen v. Husen, 487 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Neb.
1992) (quoting Crowley v. McCoy, 449 N.W.2d 221, 244 (Neb. 1989))
(analyzing relationship between two payment provisions contained
in property settlement and divorce decree to determine effect of
the payee’s remarriage on the payor’s liability to make alimony
payments); see also Ruble v. Reich, 611 N.W.2d 844, 850 (Neb.
2000) (“We view a contract as a whole in order to construe it.”).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011