Krajacich v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2012 MT 82

The Great Falls Clinic, LLP is a Montana general professional partnership of medical professionals; Appellants are three licensed clinical psychologists who were former partners.
In August 2004, the partners signed a Restated Partnership Agreement governing, among other things, separation payments and post-separation forfeitures.
Article 6.2(b) provides that within three years after separation, if a partner engages in the practice of medicine in the primary county or contiguous counties, the partner forfeits all interest in certain accounts and receives no payment.
The psychologists separated in August 2010 and sued for full partnership interest; the Clinic moved for summary judgment asserting Article 6.2(b) applies to the psychologists.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the Clinic, holding the term "practice of medicine" includes the practice of psychology under ordinary contract interpretation; the psychologists appealed.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding the contract language unambiguous and covering psychologists under Article 6.2(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in ruling that 'practice of medicine' includes psychology?	Krajacich et al. argued the term excludes psychology; it is a medical term.	Clinic argued the term is broad and not limited to physicians; psychology falls within ordinary meaning.	No error; term unambiguous and includes psychology.
Were there genuine issues of material fact about the parties' intent regarding 'practice of medicine' that required trial?	Affidavits suggested differing views on whether psychologists practiced medicine.	Interpretation is governed by the contract language, which is not ambiguous.	No genuine material facts; contract interpretation is a question of law.

Corporate Air v. Edwards Jet Ctr., Mont., Inc., 345 Mont. 336 (Mont. 2008) (contract interpretation; strict reading of writing)
Rumph v. Dale Edwards, Inc., 600 P.2d 163 (Mont. 1979) (interpretation of contract terms; whole instrument)
Dollar Plus Stores, Inc. v. R-Montana Assocs., L.P., 350 Mont. 476 (Mont. 2009) (ordinary meaning of contract terms; not technical meaning)
Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States Coop., 164 P.3d 851 (Mont. 2007) (ambiguity determination; contract interpretation only if reasonable reading exists)
Wurl v. Polson Sch. Dist. No. 23, 127 P.3d 436 (Mont. 2006) (ambiguity determination; legal question if no ambiguity)
Asbeck (State ex rel. Mont. Dept. of Transp.) v., 80 P.3d 127 (Mont. 2003) (interpretation of contract terms; ascertain intention from writing)