Holmes v. Holmes, 17 So. 3d 666 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)
Feb 27, 2009OUTCOME: Reversed and Remanded
The express declaration that the provision is an integrated bargain is in direct conflict with the statement that the award is one for periodic alimony and subject to modification under certain circums ... tances. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the provision at issue was susceptible to more than one interpretation and, therefore, that it was ambiguous. Accordingly, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals held that the trial court erred in disallowing parol evidence on the issue of the parties' intent in entering into that agreement. The Court reversed the judgment insofar as it determined that the provision of the parties' settlement agreement pertaining to periodic alimony was unambiguous, and the Court remanded the cause to the trial court for it to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Holmes v. Holmes, 17 So. 3d 666, 673 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)
