Section 4.24 Interpretation and Construction

• Library: Family Law Deskbook and 2014 Supp

B. (§4.24) Interpretation and Construction

Even if there is no dispute as to the validity of the agreement, the parties may disagree as to the meaning of certain terms or the application of the agreement. The court, nevertheless, can validate the agreement and interpret the terms of it. See Reynolds v. Reynolds, 861 S.W.2d 825 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Podrecca v. Podrecca, 794 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990) (parties disagreed as to the meaning of the term “value,” and it was held that the parties intended this term to mean “net” value); Nedblake v. Nedblake, 682 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). If the agreement is lost, parol evidence may be taken to determine the provisions of it, but the evidence as to the terms and provisions must be clear and convincing. Whitenton v. Whitenton, 659 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983), disavowed on other grounds by Hoffmann v. Hoffmann,
676 S.W.2d 817 (Mo. banc 1984).

In McGilley v. McGilley, 951 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997), the trial court found an antenuptial agreement to be void because of its ambiguity and not its unconscionability. But the Western District found that the intent of the parties was clear because the agreement, when read as a whole, was unambiguous and sufficiently definite to avoid being held totally unenforceable. In dealing with the issue of whether the agreement was so vague as to be unenforceable, the court must apply ordinary contract principles. It is the court’s duty to examine it as a whole to...