COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 1, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT II |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
Arthur D. Dyer,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul Law,
Defendant-Respondent. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
Before Brown, C.J.,
¶1 PER CURIAM. Arthur D. Dyer appeals from a circuit court order dismissing his claims against Paul Law on the grounds that the parties’ previous settlement agreement released all claims. We agree and affirm.
¶2 In 1999, Dyer and Law entered into an agreement to exchange
properties (the Exchange Agreement). Law
transferred the
The parties hereby agree to substitute their performance required under the Exchange Documents for those provided herein and the documents contemplated hereby. The parties hereby release each other from any claim or cause of action relating to the Exchange Documents.
The settlement agreement defined “Exchange Documents” as the Exchange Agreement together with other related documents. The settlement agreement set out the parties’ new obligations relating to various properties and indebtedness.
¶3 Dyer later learned that he could not develop the Settler
Avenue property he received in the exchange with Law because a survey revealed that
a portion of the property was below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and
therefore subject to the control of the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. Dyer also claimed defects
relating to a right-of-way for access to the
¶4 Law sought summary judgment because the settlement agreement barred Dyer’s claims. The circuit court agreed and characterized the situation as follows:
[T]here’s a settlement agreement that contemplates not only the dismissal of the prior lawsuit with prejudice, but also contemplates release of all claims relating to this property transaction. The guys washed their hands. It was a good expression, I think, and walked away from each other saying, it’s done.
Dyer appeals from the circuit court order dismissing his claims.
¶5 We
review decisions on summary judgment by applying the same methodology as the
circuit court. M & I First Nat’l Bank v.
Episcopal Homes Mgt., Inc., 195
¶6 The construction of a settlement agreement is guided by
contract law. See Fleming v. Threshermen’s Mut. Ins. Co., 131
The lodestar of contract interpretation is the intent of the parties. In ascertaining the intent of the parties, contract terms should be given their plain or ordinary meaning. If the contract is unambiguous, our attempt to determine the parties’ intent ends with the four corners of the contract, without consideration of extrinsic evidence.
Huml v. Vlazny, 2006
WI 87, ¶52, 293
¶7 The settlement agreement states that Dyer and Law “release
each other from any claim or cause of action relating to the Exchange
Documents.” The use of “such sweeping
words” as ‘‘any’’ makes “the settlement … ‘global’ in its coverage.”
¶8 Dyer argues that the warranty deed for the
¶9 Dyer contrasts the disputes that resulted in the settlement agreement
with the current disputes about alleged defects in the
¶10 The settlement agreement is unambiguous and its scope is sufficiently broad to preclude the present action. The settlement agreement contains no qualifying or limiting language and releases “any claim or cause of action relating to the Exchange Documents.” The settlement agreement did not reserve or expressly exclude any claims. As the circuit court succinctly put it, the parties sought to “walk[] away from each other.” We affirm the circuit court’s order dismissing Dyer’s claims against Law.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5 (2005-06).