Massachusetts Appeals Court· 2/5/1991

Parrish v. Parrish

Citations

566 N.E.2d 103
30 Mass. App. Ct. 78
1991 Mass. App. LEXIS 68

How courts have described this case

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

holding the word “merged” to be ambiguous in a separation agreement
interpreting separation agreement according to principles of contract law to conclude trial judge's findings inadequate
intent of parties, as determined from “whole agreement,” controls when deciding whether separation agreement survives judgment of divorce
extrinsic evidence pertaining to background and purpose of parties and their understanding of meaning of particular language may be considered in construing ambiguous contract language
extrinsic evidence pertaining to background and purpose of parties and their understanding of meaning of particular language may be considered in construing ambiguous contract language
use of word \merge\ not dispositive; parties' intention regarding merger controls, determined from agreement as whole and extrinsic evidence if agreement leaves parties' intention in doubt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Warner, Fine, Gillerman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.