Timothy Scott Marcum v. Haskel "Hack" Ayers
398 S.W.3d 624
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs purchased Mountain Ayers property from Defendants in August 2005 under an as-is contract.
- Contract stated purchaser buys property without representations or warranties and must inspect prior to closing.
- Disclosure form indicated no landfill on the property.
- Settlement Letter in June 2006 paid $5,200 in full for damages and stated it was the final settlement.
- After further house problems, Plaintiffs sued; Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The Trial Court found the Settlement Letter unambiguous and a full release of all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Settlement Letter unambiguously releases all claims. | Marcum argues the letter is ambiguous and does not clearly release all claims. | A release can be valid without the words all or release when terms clearly define scope. | Settlement Letter unambiguously releases all Mountain Ayers damages. |
| Whether extrinsic evidence could be considered to interpret the release. | Plaintiffs contend extrinsic evidence should be considered to resolve ambiguity. | Unambiguous contract language controls; extrinsic evidence not needed. | Extraneous evidence was unnecessary; contract language controls. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on contract-interpretation grounds. | Argument questions the interpretation and existence of a release. | Legal questions of contract interpretation favorable to the movant support summary judgment. | Court affirmed summary judgment for Defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planters Gin Co. v. Fed. Compress & Warehouse Co., Inc., 78 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. 2002) (initial task is to interpret contract language; only ambiguity allows rule of construction)
- Kafozi v. Windward Cove, LLC, 184 S.W.3d 693 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (ambiguity assessment; intent governed by language of contract)
- Richland Country Club, Inc. v. CRC Equities, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (release scope not defined in isolation; context matters)
- Cross v. Earls, 517 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. 1974) (discusses release interpretation in contract disputes)
- Towe Iron Works, Inc. v. Towe, 243 S.W.3d 562 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (courts do not rewrite contracts for harsh terms)
- Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (court rejects rewriting contract to improve terms)
- McCarley v. West Quality Food Service, 960 S.W.2d 585 (Tenn. 1998) (summary-judgment standard; no state-federal mismatch)
- Hannan v. Alltel Publ’g Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008) (summary-judgment burden-shifting in Tennessee)