Cited by

¶ 21 (App. 2005) (“A contract is not ambiguous just because the parties .

¶13 Robert’s argument relies on the Decree’s personal property clause, which states, “Robert T Speltz is awarded … all vehicles, household furniture, furnishings and appliances, and other personal property in [his] possession.” He also cites ¶ 25 (App. 2005), to support his argument that the personal property provision in the Decree “is broad and encompasses cash payments [Robert] already received.” ¶14 In Lamparella, the parties did not expressly include the husband’s annuity policy in their pr

A decree is ambiguous “when [its language] can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning.” ¶ 21 (App. 2005).

Contract language is ambiguous “only when it can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning.” ¶ 21 (App. 2005).

¶ 21 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).

“Although determination of the intent of contracting parties from extrinsic evidence may require fact finding, whether contract language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation so that extrinsic evidence is even admissible is a question of law for the court.” ¶ 21 (App. 2005).

¶ 21 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).

“A contract is not ambiguous just because parties disagree about its meaning.” ¶ 21 (App. 2005).

A document is ambiguous “only when [the language] can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning.” ¶ 21 (App. 2005).

¶ 18 (App. 2005); see Gary Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Sun Lodge, Inc., ("The trial court will be affirmed when it reaches the correct conclusion even if it does so for an incorrect reason.").

¶ 10, n.1 (App. 2005) (defining nonprobate transfers as assets transferred outside of probate such as insurance proceeds, payable- on-death accounts, and other revocable dispositions).

n.1, ¶ 10 3 FAIRBANKS, III, et al. v. FAIRBANKS Decision of the Court (App. 2005) (defining non-probate transfers as assets transferred outside of probate such as insurance proceeds, payable on death accounts, and other revocab

See Cohen, 215 Ariz. at 66, ¶ 11 (a decree is ambiguous if it "can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning") ( ¶ 21 (App. 2005)); ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2012).

A decree is ambiguous if it “can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning.” ¶ 16 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 21 (App. 2005)).

¶ 21 (App. 2005) (whether contract language is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation is a question of law for the court).

¶ 21, (“A contract is not ambiguous just because the parties to it [] disagree about its meaning.”).

¶ 21 (App. 2005) (as amended).