Utah Court of Appeals
Must Utah courts find facial ambiguity before admitting parol evidence? Flores v. Earnshaw Explained
Summary
Earnshaw attempted to sell a yet-to-be-built condominium unit to Flores using a standard real estate purchase contract (REPC). When Earnshaw later tried to increase the purchase price, Flores sued for specific performance. The trial court found the REPC ambiguous regarding whether the sale included a fully built-out unit or just a shell, admitted parol evidence, and ordered Earnshaw to sell a fully built-out unit at the original price.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Flores v. Earnshaw, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the proper sequence for analyzing contract ambiguity and admitting parol evidence. The decision reinforces that courts must determine facial ambiguity before considering extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent.
Background and Facts
Earnshaw advertised pre-construction condominium units for sale and entered into a real estate purchase contract (REPC) with Flores for unit 402 at $144,950. The REPC was a standard form contract typically used for existing improved properties, not unbuilt units. After signing, Earnshaw attempted to raise the price to $184,950, claiming the original price was an error. When Flores refused the price increase, he sued for specific performance.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether clause 1.1 of the REPC was ambiguous regarding what was included in the sale. The clause stated that certain items were included “if presently owned and attached to the Property.” Since no building existed when the contract was executed, the parties disputed whether this provision was facially ambiguous and whether parol evidence could be admitted to determine their intent.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred by admitting parol evidence before determining whether the contract was facially ambiguous. Citing Café Rio and Daines v. Vincent, the court emphasized that facial ambiguity must exist before courts may consider extrinsic evidence of intent. The court found clause 1.1 unambiguous because it clearly stated items were included only if “presently owned and attached,” which none were at contract execution.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the hierarchy of contract interpretation principles in Utah. Courts must first analyze the contract language for facial ambiguity before considering parol evidence. The opinion also warns against using inappropriate standard form contracts, as Earnshaw’s use of a standard REPC for an unbuilt unit created unnecessary complications.
Case Details
Case Name
Flores v. Earnshaw
Citation
2009 UT App 90
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20080102-CA
Date Decided
April 9, 2009
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A trial court may not consider parol evidence of intent without first finding facial ambiguity in the language of a contract.
Standard of Review
Questions of law reviewed for correctness; questions of fact reviewed with deference to the trial court
Practice Tip
When representing clients in contract disputes, first analyze whether the contract language is facially ambiguous before seeking to introduce parol evidence of the parties’ intent.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.