Charles T. Berry, Jr. v. Charles v. Klinger

Summary

The court held that the contract's repayment provision was clear and unambiguous, requiring repayment only if the property was not sold or jointly developed because the Klingers had decided against, or unreasonably impeded, those alternatives. Because the plaintiffs could not use extrinsic evidence to eliminate or disregard the phrase “decided to” and failed to prove entitlement under the written agreement, the trial court properly struck their evidence and entered judgment for the Klingers.