Question-In August of 2008 I filed a contempt order against my ex because we had agreed on our CO to split the cost of our child’s car loan if payment went into default- I was to put the money out and he re-imburse his part I put $4,000 out and he never paid back.
I brought him to court and he claimed he did not understand the CO and NEVER would agree to help his daughter out if she could not make payments. (We argued over what default meant- I know we meant if she could not make payment because the car was in my name and my lawyer was trying to protect my credit, we would not want it to go into collection) My ex argued default wasn’t until they came to get the car.
I the Plaintiff was denied based upon the following:
- Court has Jurisdiction
- When a provision is ambiguous then it shall be construed against the party who was responsible for the drafting of the doc. (Plaintiff) therefore the ct. interprets this provision against the Plaintiff
- The Plaintiff has burden of proof- in the case of two reasonable interpretations, the court must side against the party having the burden of proof and find that the Plaintiff has not met her burden.
I knew as the Judge was summing things up he did not clearly understand what I said but I did not want to be rude and correct him- but if needed I could most likely get legal proof- I had no idea it mattered so I did not bring proof to show that it was the defendants lawyer who drafted the doc. ( It was my lawyer who asked him to)but the Judge stated that he needs to side against the lawyer who drafted the final word because they may have purposely worded it to favor their person.
Since the finding of fact was wrong can I bring this back to court? or do you think I still would not win due to the 2 reasonable interpretations?