364 S.W.3d 411
Tex. App.2012Background
- Wells and Youst divorced in 2005; final decree required alimony of $2,000/month until the earliest of several events, including Wells returning to work on a full-time basis.
- Wells moved to Dallas in 2006, took a contract attorney job; Youst sought to terminate alimony by claiming Wells returned to full-time work.
- In 2008, the trial court granted Youst partial summary judgment, holding alimony ceased May 15, 2006, and reserved reimbursement questions.
- Youst later sought damages from Wells for alimony payments and Wells counterclaimed for past-due alimony.
- The trial court awarded Youst $22,000 for reimbursement and $13,500 in attorney’s fees after a bench trial, Wells appealed on multiple issues.
- The court held the term “full time basis” is ambiguous and remanded for a new trial, sustaining Wells’s challenge to the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 'full time basis' ambiguous in the alimony clause? | Wells: term lacks definite meaning; hours evidence shows ambiguity. | Youst: Wells returned to full-time work; term is unambiguous as defined by contract. | Ambiguous; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Milner v. Milner, 361 S.W.3d 615 (Tex.2012) (ambiguity question governs contract interpretation)
- Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 394 (Tex.1983) (ambiguity requires multi-interpretive readings; intent from writing)
- Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex.2011) (harmonize writing; ascertain true intent)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex.2005) (summary judgment standard in contract interpretation)
- Tawes v. Barnes, 340 S.W.3d 419 (Tex.2011) (contract interpretation standard)