COLOMIRIS v. Woods

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the contract was unambiguous and therefore the court could not evaluate parol evidence or the apparent fairness of the outcome
• holding that there must be a nexus between “the alleged ambiguities” and “the contract language necessary to resolve [the] dispute”
• holding that lower court erred in awarding summary judgment based on extrinsic evidence to interpret release provision in mortgage contract where the provision was unambiguous
• holding that “courts should enforce the terms of unambiguous written contracts without regard to the consequences of that enforcement”
• noting that “extrinsic evidence admitted must help interpret the ambiguous language and not be used to contradict other, unambiguous language”
• explaining that, when issues related to a contract's interpretation may be resolved by referring to the language of the contract, we need not look to external legal principles

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).