- 18 -
speak distinctly and by a preponderance in favor of a given
construction of the periodic payment provisions, the agreement
does not on its face exclude the estate’s construction. As an
example, the attorney who represented all three plaintiffs is
mentioned only in the lump-sum payment clause of paragraph 2.1.
Likewise, paragraph 3.0 refers to plaintiffs and payees in the
plural when discussing rights to the periodic payments. We also
note that the IRS examiner who audited the estate tax return
answered a question on cross-examination regarding whether there
was anything in paragraph 2.2 that indicated whose claims were
furnishing the consideration for the annuities: “No, there’s
nothing stated specifically as to which claim this applies to, it
just says who it’s payable to.” The Court in these circumstances
declines to limit the evidence considered under the parol
evidence rule. Respondent’s objection is overruled.
C. Analysis
The record in the instant case reflects that the annuities
at issue here were, as of the date of decedent’s death, payable
to her estate. The settlement agreement provides that, in
absence of designation of a beneficiary by decedent or her
parents as co-conservators, the periodic payments would be made
to the estate. The estate has never alleged, nor does any
documentary evidence suggest, that any such designation had been
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011