Williams v. Williams

I reluctantly but respectfully concur in the result. I find that the two clauses of the partition agreement quoted in the opinion create an ambiguity regarding what interests in the parties’ businesses Mr. Williams was to receive as a result of the agreement. However, under the rationale set forth in City Bank and Trust of Shreveport v. Willard Scott, Jr., 575 So.2d 872 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991) decided and handed down by this court also on this date, I conclude that parol evidence is inadmissible to explain the ambiguity. In City Bank and Trust of Shreveport we stated:

This court has noted that…