Dohn v. Dohn ( 2003 )

Hunstein, Justice,

concurring specially.

While I concur with the majority that the trial court erred by ruling in favor of Carl Dohn, I would hold that where, as here, the language of a contract is clear and unambiguous, the courts must look to it and it alone to determine the intention of the parties. See Kruse v. Todd, 260 Ga. 63, 67 (389 SE2d 488) (1990). See also Carlos v. Lane, 275 Ga. 674, 675 (571 SE2d 736) (2002) (“[i]f the language is plain and unambiguous and the intent may be clearly gathered therefrom, we need look no further. [Cits.]”). Because the intention of the Dohns in executing Paragraph 13 of the settlement agreement may be ascertained from the plain and unambiguous language the parties used therein, there was no need for interpretation of that language by the trial court or this Court.

I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins in this special concurrence.