Hussein-Scott v. Scott, 298 P.3d 179

Marital settlement agreement (Florida decree) governs alimony; termination date ambiguously stated as 12/2/2020 and a separate “to be paid until Yasmine’s 18th birthday or until remarriage” clause.
Yasmine turns 18 on Aug 1, 2015; Myriam turns 18 on Dec 2, 2020; dispute centers on which clause controls end date.
Alimony provisions were recorded on a pre-printed form; one line for termination date, another for “any other specifics.”
Superior Court found the 2016 end date (Aug 1, 2016) based on credibility of testimony; Florida law governs under UIFSA’s choice-of-law rule.
Alaska Supreme Court interprets the contract de novo for legal questions, potentially relying on extrinsic evidence only if necessary to resolve ambiguity.
Court reverses, holding the earlier term (12/2/2020) controls and ends alimony either on that date or upon Camilla’s remarriage, if earlier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which termination date controls the alimony clause.	Camilla argues the later date reflects the parties’ intent.	Jerry argues the 12/2/2020 date was a clerical error and the younger child’s date should govern.	The 12/2/2020 date prevails; alimony ends on that date (or remarriage if earlier).

Zito v. Zito, 969 P.2d 1144 (Alaska 1998) (interpretation of settlement agreements; credibility not controlling on appeal)
Wahl v. Wahl, 945 P.2d 1229 (Alaska 1997) (contract interpretation where extrinsic evidence may be used)
Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1953) (contracts interpreted as other contracts; intent matters)
Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070 (Alaska 2011) (contract interpretation; use of Florida/Alaska principles)
Florida Power Corp. v. City of Tallahassee, 18 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1944) (principles of contract interpretation; precedence of terms)