Kipp v. Chips Estate

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where contract language is unambiguous, “the court must accept the plain meaning of the language and not look to construction aids”
• holding that ambiguity will be found where writing, viewed in its entirety, fairly admits of more than one meaning
• noting that “master rule for the construction of deeds” is to determine parties’ intent “from the entire instrument” which must “prevail[] over technical terms or their formal arrangement” (quotation omitted)
• noting that “estate in common is preferred to joint tenancy” (quotation omitted)
• finding extrinsic evidence is relevant “only when, in combination with the writing, it supports an interpretation that is different from that reached on the basis of the writing alone”
• reaffirming “master rule” that “the intention of the parties . . . prevails over technical terms or their formal arrangement” (quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).