holding that plain and unambiguous contract language controls the interpretation of contracts
How later courts described this case
- holding that plain and unambiguous contract language controls the interpretation of contracts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Judge Hedrick
dissenting.
This case was heard in the Court of Appeals on 23 September 1985. I received the majority opinion authored by Judge Parker and concurred in by Judge Becton on 30 January 1986. My analysis of the majority opinion together with the record in this case compels me to the conclusion that the directed verdict for defendant Shirley Stevenson was proper. The guaranty agreement, bearing no date, in my opinion, clearly and unambiguously obligated defendant to pay only $5,642.67, the amount of the indebtedness written into the agreement. Furthermore, I believe that the evidence that defendant obtained from the bank manager the amount due on all of her husband’s notes and obligations, borrowed that amount of money from the bank, secured that obligation on a second deed of trust on her home and paid all of her husband’s obligations, such evidence being uncontroverted and said facts being admitted by the bank’s manager, is sufficient to discharge defendant from any obligations under the “so-called” guaranty agreement. It is inconceivable to me that the bank is not estopped to collect more from this defendant as a. matter of law.
I vote to affirm.