 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mittelman v. Testman2/7/2002
of the parties' agreements precluding any evidence of collateral agreements; and second, is the agreement susceptible of the meaning contended for by the party offering the extrinsic evidence? (Bionghi v. Metropolitan Water Dist., at p. 1364.) Because the agreement is integrated, "extrinsic evidence is admissible only to supplement or explain the terms of the agreement and even then, only where such evidence is consistent with the terms of the integrated document, and only where the writing is not also intended as an exclusive statement regarding its subject matter. [Citation.]" (EPA Real Estate Partnership v. Kang ( 1992) 12 Cal.App.4th 171, 176-177, emphasis omitted.) The rule allowing consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine whether a contract is reasonably susceptible of a meaning urged by a party " 'must be restricted to its stated bounds; it does no more than allow extrinsic evidence of the parties' understanding and intended meaning of the words used in their written agreement. While it allows parol evidence for this purpose, it is unconcerned with extrinsic collateral agreements.' [Citation.]" (Bionghi v. Metropolitan Water Dist., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 1365, emphasis omitted.) The parol evidence rule does not allow the court to rely on extrinsic evidence to construe an integrated contract in a way that is inconsistent with its plain language or to establish a collateral agreement or additional contract term. (Id. at pp. 1367-1368.)
Mittelman has not pointed to any term or provision of the Testman/Mittelman Settlement Agreement that is reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that Mittelman, notwithstanding his release of all claims, would be entitled to recover an additional $35,000 in attorney fees payable from the Trust. The extrinsic evidence offered by Mittelman (specifically, letters by his and Testman's counsel confirming the "mutual understanding" between themselves and the minor's counsel and guardian) demonstrates that he seeks to use this evidence to establish additional terms rather than explain an ambiguity in the actual language of the parties' release. Because the Testman/Mittelman Settlement Agreement's integration clause establishes that the parties' written agreement was intended as an exclusive statement regarding its subject matter, the letters are not admissible to establish additional terms. (Bionghi v. Metropolitan Water Dist., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1367-1368.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|