Hi kids, it's that time of the week again so let's dive in with two feet crossed and two nostrils pinched:
Dirico v. Redland Estates:
Parol evidence, it's a bi$%h:
Because there is no ambiguity in the contract, it was error to admit extrinsic evidence as to the parties’ intent in executing the addenda. See Real Estate Value Co., Inc., 92 So. 3d at 260. Absent ambiguity, there were no genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment here. See Pearson v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 60 So. 3d 1168, 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“If a contract’s terms are clear and unambiguous, the language itself is the best evidence of the parties’ intent and its plain meaning controls, warranting summary judgment.”) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Given our interpretation of the unambiguous contract provisions at issue, Seller was entitled to summary judgment in its favor.Case closed! (literally).
(Sorry, not much else to report -- ahh, the life of state court appellate law clerk).